Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987/10/28 - Agenda Packet701 -02 a10�'28 -87 PAC Agenda � � 7 r-1 "11 777,e �7 aw OF RANU-K) CUCA?yTQ-,CA FLANNING Co1mvilssION AGENDA WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 28,1937 740 P.M. 110as P�jw C0#.-7KU=T cwribt BAW Im RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIPORMA 0 L PW" of Allqftewe II. mum I.IKU Commissioner Blakesley Commissioner Emerick Commissioner Chitlea — CommissionerMeNlel Commissioner Tolstoy W. Announcoments IV. Approval of ftates September 9, 1987 September 23, 1087 V. Caramt Calendar The following Consent items are expected to be routine and non-controverstal.' Tha. � tit j*k. acted on by the Commission at one time without discussfor . it onxvie has concern over any item, it should be removed for A. HOME OCCIIPATIOX 0ERM10 87-255 - CISNEROS - A request to modify the original Resolution of Approval to allow instruction of Childbirth classes within a single family residence to occur on Saturdays - APN 1077-151-75 B. TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSV. ENT AND CO9D-r1'IONA i - HOYT LUMBER - A request to construct an 8,000 square foc:, warehouse building addition to' an existing home improvement cutter and the development of a Master Plan on 2 acres of land In the Office/:rofessional District located at 7110 Archibald A-venue, northwest corner of Base, Line Road and Lomita Court - APN 202-151-33. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 81-40 - CASLER - 'the develoPD-ent U -11,744 square foot industrial on a 1.54 acre panel within the General Industrial District (Subs` iea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located on Sharon Circle - APN 209- 261-23. 4 D. TRACT 13058 DESIGN REVIEW - PULTE HOLES - Design review o banding elevations and plot plans for a previously approved tract ms consisting of 200 single family lots on 29.16 acres of land in �,ie Medium Residential District (4 -14 dwelling units per y acre),' located on the west s.!de of �'Vairinont Way, south of Highland Avenue -APN 202 -211 13 and•,.$. E. - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND Leg N REVIEW 87-43 - LA PETITE - The development of a 5,T00 square foot day care facility ,n 1,.86 acres of land in the Community Facilities District of they Yletoria Planned Community, located on the north side of North Windrows Loop at Tipu Place - APN 227 - 441 -25. F. TIME EXTENSION FOR TEN, TRACT 12659 - SECURITY MANAGEMENT - A residential subdivision of 135 single family lots and 3 common lots on 67.67 acres of Land in the Very Low 1. Residential District (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda ,r Specific Plgn, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street - APN 225- 011 -36. r. TENT'; TIVE PARCEL MAP 5996 - DAVID BOWDEN - Submittal of a Resolution of Approval for the deletion of a Condition of Approval requiring an in -ilea fee for the future undergrounding of existing overhead utilities for a parcel map located on the south side of Wilson Avenue, east of Mayberry Avenue - APN 201 -180 59. " VL lhiflic Hear-igs 7, he following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals mvy voice ",eir opinion of the related project. Please wait to le re(tognised by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes pg ; individual `or each project: EL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87-04G - TAC DEVELOPMENT - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Low- Mecaum Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential`,24- 30 dweling units per acre) for 5.95 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald = APN 208 -031- 18, 19. (Continued from September 23, 1987; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87 -05 - TAC DEVELOPMENT - A request to amend the Development Districts Map From Low- Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, located on the s !.ith side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN 208 - 031 -18, 19. (Continued from September 23, 1987.) Amok �r e lu w. P� P . �� T< E 0l't=NTAL ASS MENT AND GENERAL r }r AX =MZNT 87-04$ - TAG; DEVEL[IIP IfT - A roC fo am hA the Land use Element of the General Plan ffroia -t o-w- iVbA(A Residential. (4-8 dwelling -uunits per acre) to office for 1.89 auras of laud, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Read APN 208 - 03117, 54, 55, a6 and 57. (Continued from September 23, 1997.) SimASSESSMENT AND DE;'ELOPMENT I?ISTRiCT AMEN - TAC DEVELOPMENT - A regUt,);t to amend the Development District Map from Low- Medium Residential (44 dwelling units p(,` acre) to Office Professional for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road -APN 208- 031 -17, 54, 56,56 and 57. (Continued from September 23, 1987.) J. DEVELOPMENT AGREEiVMENT - A Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and TAC Development Corporation for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay Distrlvt (Section 17.20.04D of the Development Code, Ordinance 211) for 170 apartment to be located on the south side of Base Lim Road, west of At bAld Avenue - APN 208 - 031 -I8, 19. S. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13359 -- WALTON - A giilstom lot subdivision o 3.73 acres of land into parcels in the Very Low Density Residential District iess than 2 dwelling unit_, per acre), located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Hil]sidA Road - APN 1061- 691 -9, 10 and- ??- (Continued from October 10, 1987,1 Related File. lrar anee 87 -15 L. ENVIRONMENTAI, ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87 -15 - WALTON - A request to reduce: the minimum average lot sire from 22,500 squarR feet in area to 21,392 square feet in area in conjunction with a six (6) Iot subdivision located on the east side of Sapphire Street 'iouth of Hillside Road - APX 2061- 691 -10 and,' II. Related File: '-fentative Tract 13359. M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -38 CHURCH OF CHRIST A request to establish a ehuren in 3,000 sq%kre feet of an t ng Industrial eomploz located at 9223 Archibald Avenue, Suites J and K in the General Industrial Area, Subarea 4,, of the Industrial Specir,c Plan District APN 209 - 211 -32. i c 1 k' b' N. E13VIRONMENTAL ASSE -1q i ENT ANTS VARIANCE 87 -10 - CO��1PR - request to reduce the average landseaping amv5 fe : to 17 feet and the required parking setback from 25 feet to I7 -'feet along a street frontage of 130 feet, for a two -story project on 0.6 acres of land in the OfficelProfesstonal District, located at the southwest corner of Beryl Street and Base Line Road - APN 208-693-10. ViL New -9asiness t?. 1;.NMOMORNTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW �5 7!3PIR - 1he deveopmet o a 234 quare oat tro- sor medical and Professional office building an 0.[~_ncres of land the Office /Professional District, located at the` ";nuthwest corner ,of Beryl Street sand Base Line Road - APN 204 - 593'_0. Related File-- Variance 8710. P. APP'3AL OF DEVELOPMENT REVIE54 87-06 - ' ROIVAR PROPERTIES % -' The appeal o conditions of Apmroval requiring the payment of in lieu fees for undergrounding of utilities along Vincent Avenue and 8th Street for the development of an industrieX building in the Minimum impoct heavy Industrial District (Subarea 9), located a� I the southwest corner of Jersey Be-4devard and Vincent Avenue -!�Ph 209-143-13. Q, TENTATIVE TRACT 13063 •- Cri li'ION - P,eview of the Perimeter wail along East Av nue for an a roved residential subdivision of 74 single family lots* on 32.6 acres of land in the Low Residential DistrW (2-4 dwelling units per acre) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the east s:de of East Avenue at Catalpa Street - APN 227 - 071 -07, 11 and 20. VIiL DhMetoris Reports R. MODIFICATION TO THE IN SPECIFIC PLAN RAIL SPUR REfgiUIREM 798 a. Commission AwhWas X. Public Comments This is the time and Place for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here ape those which do not already appear on this agenda. XL A ,! :fit The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that 36t an 11 P.m, adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission.. p ^w rF- �'� ; �'AVICI CITY MAP �a 3 NIL Lmloj +� ....ti.4 a SUM 1 fry' AM F8 T IL F8 YdAV A .r✓ M «� a,Q Ila YIR IIIA • BAN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG. n CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 9, 1987 Chairman Larry McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ' 0 , Planning Commission to order at 7 :00 p.m. The meeting was held. at . -.is Park Community Center, 9161, Base tine Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman,McNiel th6n led in the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Biakesley, Suzanne Chitiea, Bruce Emerick, Larry t4chiel, Peter Tols+Gy COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Celeman, Senior Planner; Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney; Chris Westman, Assistant Planner; Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Tom Grahn, Assistant Planner; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. a WOUNCOENTS Brad u er, City P1znner, stated the City Council heard public testimony September 8,1`, 1987 on the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Council will act ,,on the ;foothill Boulevard Specific Plan on September 16, 1987. The workshop of the fast food standards will be held October 8, 1987, Regarding the agenda, Items D and 0 will be heard together, Items J and M will be heard together, as well as Items K and L. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion Moved by Commissioner Tolstoy, seconded by Commissioner Chitiea, carried to approve the Minutes of July 08, 1987 as amended by Commissioner Chitiea. Planning Commission Minutes -1- SeptembE'9, 1987 PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE HERMIT 87 -28 - MLSSENGER ThF request tor a Master CUP to al I ow us!ness Suppo rt ery Ees, onven.ence Sales and Service, and Food and Beverage Sales in Buildings 1, 2, and 3 of an approved industrial business park, in the General Industrial District, Subarea 2, located on the south side of Arrow at gear Gulch Place - APN 209 - 012 -19. (Continued from August 26, 1987) Nancy Fong, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Emevick requested clarification on a Master CUP. Ms. Fong responded a Master CUP is a blanket conditional use permit and would eliminate one of the review processes that staff would have through the conditional use process. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Dana Sanders, representing Messenger Invettment Company, 16912 -A Voncarmen, City of Irvine, stated the history of development of Messenger in Rancho Cucamonga and their intent for future development. He further stated that they are applying for a Master CUP fer a portion of the park which totals less than seven percent of the total overall buildable square footage of the park. The reason for this request is the tenancies that would go in these small spaces are more reactionary, and are net able to go through .1 90 day review process and what Messenger is trying to do is bring tew tenants to the city or 'retain the ones already here in this size category. ? iey are not trying to erode the Industrial Specific Plan but simply requesting a modification to the plan. Mr. Scott Peotter, representing Messenger Investment Company, addressed the issues of the mixed uses. They are looking for an opportunity to present a transition -and suggested the proposed uses will provide actually less truck traffic in their subarea. The main goal is fo support the industrial area and provide a transition. They have the additional parking and feel the architecxual frontage to Arrow Highway is well presented. Mr. Peotter stated a Master CUP wound serve both the City and Messenger as well, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated the question is not just one of specific numbers, but the concentration of retail use on a boulevard which is a dividing line between a residential and an industrial area, She was not sure whether retail use as a transition is what was intended. By allowing the Master CUP this does not properly bring the individual uses before the public and does not retain the regulation through the public process. It would not be advisable from Commissioner Chitiea's viewpoint. Planning Commission Minutes -2- September 9, 1987 E.I li Commissioner Emerick ques'tdoned when a prior Master CUP had been approved. Chairman McNiel stw+-- that ,Master CUP was on the Barmakii-n project and the distinction is that that project was not 'Aearly`_- ;broad as Messenger and at that, time there was concern on whether it had the potential of being a precedence - setting maneuver. Commissioner Chitiea stated the Barmakian project was also a self - contained inward -;ype use as opposed,--to Messenger wherA this will be fronting onto Arrow with a retail face forward. Commissioner 51akesley stated he could not see .how this enhances the use in this arear,nor does it serve as an :effective transition. He would not put any con;entrated commercial in i.`e area, Commissioner Tolstoy stated he felt a Master CUP dilutes the intent of the general industrial district to have retail and the City's ability to control what might be undesirable uses. Chairman McNiel stated he could not support this modification either. The other Commissioners agreed. Chairman McNiel reopened the publlic hearing. Admk Mr,. Peotter stated, as the applicant;; they would be willing to remove or adjust the other uses requests and have just the business support services and come oack =the Commission cn a case by case if and when the tenents came about in the other two categories. Brad Buller, City Planner, 'stated if the application is denied, the applicant could not resubmit a similar application within twelve months. Another option is for the applicant to request a continuance and submit a modified request, Commissioner Tolstoy stated he disapproved of Master Conditional Use Permits. Commissioner Chitiea reiterated she, too, was uncomfortable with the Master CUP. Chairman McNiel further stated his disapproval of blanket conditional use permit even on limited basis. It would have to be on an individual basis through the standard process, Commissioner Emerick moved to deny the Master CUP and to direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial;, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 9, 1987 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * -- carried B. CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT 87 -31 - NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH - A 'quest to establish a 3,700 square fiot church n an ex s ng business park, located at the southwest corner of Arrow Highway and Archibald Avenue- in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3 - APH 209-021 - 40. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Pastor Duane Merrill, representing Neighborhood Church, stated he concurs with the staff report. He asked for clarification of the occupancy load of SO people. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner, stated this fiv.. ;e is standard condition for church activities in industrial parks. ReviewiAg the condit the number 50 applies to daytime hours, Monday through Friday. 1., only time the applicant could have more people would be wec.kends an. week nights. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve i',)e resolution, Commissioner Biakesley seconded the motion. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSI49Gn0:= TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -- carried C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MODIFICATION TO ,;u.f.v ra.v avrti tnnn.�r valn avn JclC�il.G,.,. -1M, - 71 r t2sti W modify an existing y a owing am u races park in two existing employee designated parking stalls in an existing commercial center in the ne General Commercial District located on the he north side of Foothill Boule:aard, east of Red Hill Country Club Drive - APN 207 - 101 -17. Planning Commission Minutes 4- September 9, 1987 m Jr � ._,,, 4 ., Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report,, Chairman McNiel,opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present, r Chairman McNiel closed the�,,Zblic hearing, 4 )r Commissioner Chitiea stated she felt this was more than just a question of parking another ambulance on this site. This is located on the very edge of Rancho Cucamonga, eight seconds from Upland and are having trouble meeting the 10 minutes response time in the City. She felt it i w�*ild be appropriate to relocate the second ambulance ii a location within the City that is more likely to save lives. She stated that if there are two ambulances at this location, it means that one is not at a location where it might be put to better use. Chairman McNiel questioned if the applicant was bringing on another vehicle. 10 Mr, Westman stated they Yere only allowed to have one ambulance space and two spaces for people manning the station, so it would be an a�� "Iitional ambulant..% to that site. The first ambulance is on 24 hours a reas the second Mould be a 12 hour backup vehicle. Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve the Conditional Use- Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried IV, the following vote: AYES: COMMISS0NERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAK €SLEY, CPITI£A, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried D. VARIANCE 87 -12 - BAIRES -ADAIR - A request to eliminate tf:e required eve ao, u ng setback in conjunction with the proposal to construct two multi- tenant industrial buildings in the General Industrial District, Subarea 3, located at the northwest corner of Helms and Feron - APN 209- 031 -57, Related file: DR yi -30. 0. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -30 - JUAN BAIRES- ADAIR - A request to cp9struct two multi-tenanE industrial ui ngs o a,ing 30,502 square feet on 1.8 acres of land in the General industrial District, Subarea 3, located at the northwest corner of Helms Avenue and Feron Boulevard - APN 209- 031 -57. Chris Westman, Assistant Planner, presented the combined staff reports. Planning Covnission Minutes -5- September 9, 1987 Commissioner glakesle Y questioned Mr lWestman regar. placement. He did not like t way they appeared on the two of them is such close proximity. L_o�` the driveway diagrim with Mr. Westman stated that the recommendation from Vhf;,Aesign Review Committee was to, if possible, eliminate one of the drigew'a s and still provide for the technical requirements for access. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated one other option for the Commission to consider might be to turf block one drive as an emergency access. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Chris Crissada, 2055 South Baker, Ontario, representing Western States Oevelopment, concurred with the staff report. Commissioner Toistoy stated in regards to the variance his concern with the building; directly behind this project is i' 6" approximately from the property- line and this building would be right on the property line. He recommended that this gap be closed at both ends of the buildit,, especially since this was in an industrial area. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the variance could be approved with the condition that the applicant show a good faith effort in working with the property owner to the north of the project for the closure of the 18 inch gap between the two properties. Staff would work with the two property owners to ensure this would happen. Commissioner Chitiea stated she agreed with the variance. She addressed the issue of texture in the development review stating the possibility of leaving texture out of the lower half of the building might detract from the building design element. She suggested that the lower half of the building should have a change in color and texture on the three visible sides. Commissioner Biakesley Stated he liked the idea of clog ;'off tine driveway and turfing it In. Comx ; ssioner Emerick suggested moving the short driveway to the center and turf ii : giving some symmetry in the landscaping scheme and it would still be used for emergency vehicle access and it would eliminate the driveway being too close to the intersection. Barrye Hanson, Senio-V "ivil Engineer, suggested eliminating the southern most driveway and place an emergency access driveway only on Feron Street in line s0 th the center drive aisle for the parking lot. Chairman Mck el questioned the applicant if the suggestions cf the Commission dare reasonable and acceotabie. Mr. Crissada stated he concurred with the suggestions. Chairman W-Niel closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -6- Septe;itber 9, 1987 Commissioner Emerick moved to approve of the `,Variance with the added corditiorn of closure of the 18 inch gap betk`�ti the buildings on the north property line and architectural treatment on three sides of Building B instead of four. Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYSS: COMMISSIONERS: EMEOCK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS.- - NONE J ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE carried Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the design review with the access changes and the modified condition to texture. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded � motion. Notion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIUj NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ARSEri: 4OMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * r -- carried E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -35 - WILLIE AND PIE PIZZA PARLOUR - A request for the establishment of an arcade within an exiscing restaurant located in the Neighborhood Commercial District at 6322 Haven Avenue, Suite 1 - APN 201 - 271 -69. Cindy Norris, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.. Chairman HcNiel opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner T, 'toy moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit, Commissioner viAkesley seconded the motion. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * -- carried Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 9, 19871 F. ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE iNCT 13727 - JANSSE'NS - A reSiUefltial subdivision of sing a 4. o. on 3.53 acres of land ft the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located_it the southwest corner of Carnelian Street and Highland Avenue =KPH 201 - 214 -11. Scott Murphy, Associate Pia^.'*r, stated staff requests contijuance to S eptember 23, 1987. Commissioner iri tiea moved"to continue this item to September 23, 1987, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the' motion. Motion carried by the {ollowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSfOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: LONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HONE -- carried S. ASSESSMENT :15�AlaY AMENDMENT esign zns from Medium (4 -14 dwelling units per acre) and Med_i��m,,_,_> Nigh (14 -24 dwelling units per acre) Residential to Low-Meth "m Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) for a- 24.57!,acre parcel within the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Milliken Avenue - APN 202 - 211 -13 and 14. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. r,hairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Stephen Ford, representative of the William Lyon Company, stated the staff's concern seems to be whether or not this project addresses the intent of the plan. One of the intents of the community plan is to provide a variety of housing in the Groves Village. Victoria Groves, to date, has not only meet the provisions of the original community plan, it has exceeded it and the amount of common open space dedicated to the public for their use. This particular tract tnat would be involved in the plan change amendment would finish a large portion of Milliken Avenue from Victoria Park to Highland which is a very important piece of infrastructure. The other portion of the intended community plan is the provision of homes that meet "the demand of the housing market". They feel this is a very integral and vital portion of the intent of the community plan and this proposal on this site does meet the intent, it meets the demands of the housing market. They have a strong desire to complete the Groves Village as quickly as possible, at least the P131ming Commission Minutes -8- September,9, 1987 n� 1 _J ' M1 " r i , resi�denti,41 dtWe' *O*WU� The proposal is cau isteat.. oth tha' intent, of' . th+ oomllmin y ifta ftd, lest the Planning Commission's r4,comeendatioo of approval to City Cowl. Il Chairma +n Mr.Niel 61,6t4d, 0A public hearing. _) Comissiover Darick steod`r!e supported staff's recommendation to keep multiple family in plate Commissioner Tolstay, statad one features of Vittoria is the different ;egrees of density p & &ding housing. t foardabl* t. peovie working in the industrial area. 'a Commissioner Bl akesl ey stated th4 s is an excellent location for thz o mixed density and he finds too raoarpel i i ng reason to support the chaaige. Commissioner Chitiea. felt that balance; was the key word. It is important to retain some diversiV to create neighborhoods that are well balanced. She felt that the location in addition to the coercial to she north is verb -well designed the way it is. Chairman McNiel stated he concurs with the comments. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Ford stated there was a slight misconception, that a condominium or a townhouse project built on this site would be more affordable thak1 single f4mily that currently exists in The Groves. Townhouses or, condominiums cannot be built to be competitively priced in the Rancho Cucamonga area. This will continue to exist based on what is happening not only in Rancho Cucamonga but what is happening io other areas outside the city. Commiss- )ner Emerick moved to deny the request to change the land use designation from Medium and Medium -High Residential to Low - Medium Residential located at the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Milliken Avenue. Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, CHITIEA, BLRKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE It was clarified the reason for denial was the finding it was inconsistent with the goals and intent of the Victoria Plan and the goals of the General Plan. * * * * * * -- carried Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 9, 1987 -7 TIMPI,17 r1 \j H.. ENYSRO!9Ekl1L ASSESSMENT AN0 DEd£LOPM£NT k rWxEW 87 -I1 - SuNfaTOMtf The deve nto n apartment uni Ts on U.3 aces of a in" the Mediums Rmsidential District (8 -14 dwelling, units per acre), located on the north side of 19th Street, east of Hellman Avenue - APN 201- 47447.- Associated with this development if Tree Removal Permit 87 -33. Scott Associate Planner, presented the staff rfgort. Chairman McN el opened the public hearing. Fir. Yamamoto, representing the Sumitomo development, stated they accept the staff report and the conditions of the resolution. Fir. Merritt Reeve..;\ 6214 Moonstone, Alta Loma, stated his concey,n regarding the high 3ensity housing. His concerns also included acute water shortage, traffic, zoni,ng on the north side of 19th and the population growth of Rancho Cucamonga in the past four:;to. five years. n Chairman MCNiei closed the public, helaring. \� Conn. tsi ones Emerick stated he, r oui4 like tc,, see a swimming poo'i eventual,y happen. He would ' Jso like to see 'careful landscape treatmen" done around the staggered garage designed unit. Commissioner Chitiea commented this proiec.,J_i being developed for the employees of Sumitomo and a swimming pool era_ -; not required but in other developments there are other amenities such as swimming pools, spas, etc. and felt this may be an exception. Chairman W.Miel a bed with Commissioner Chitiea's comments; h3wever, he was un.- ertain whether it was requimd on a project this sma::. Ban Coleman, Senior Planner, stated the development Code requires that some type of recreational amenity, i.e,,jayuzzi, basketball court, volleyball court. swimming pool, or spas. In this instance, the applicant has opted for a putting green with the option c;` nutting in a swimming pool later. Brad Buller, C ty Planner, stated most developments larger than this include poor or spas as marketing amenities. Cemmissioner Emerick moved approval with the additiors of landscaping, Commaissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motiof, carried by the foliowinq vote: AYLS: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commis on Minutes -10- -- carried September 9, 1987 1� d I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE ARkCT 13359 - WIV,TON custom 1Qt su ivi3'- ISIOn�o acres into s-jx parcel �i the he' '° Ver;4 Low Density Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units 1, :r Acre), located on the east side of Sapphire _Street, south of Hillside Road - APP 1061- 697, -9, 10 and 11. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Smmelzer, Engineering Consultant, 316 E "0 Street, Ontaric, stated everything had been brought to a conclusion except the requirement of the 15 foot offered dedication sout,r of the pr6&rty. This is a `airl, small project and to lose a lot would Jeopardize ' their economic viability: , The trail, 'if dedicated, will absorb'4nd take away from the project ab\t 6700 square feet over six lots shy of the 27,5oo. This is a minor deiia'tion; however, if they could, acuxmKodate the trail in some other fashion rather than lose a lot, they would be open for suggestions. They feel that requiring this to be a dedicated trail is too excessive. He also, stated that if too mu -,4 area is provid0-d for trail use that certain people start using it as a dumping gnluno. if there is rime way to provide the tr'*11 without losing the lot, provide it in some'private fashion, or if there was some agreement to dedicate to the City at some time in the future, "they could come to terms with thtit. Mr. Don Miler, pe}antial boyer of the property, stated the dedication problem is a problem also for him resulting in an unfeasible project. Chair i,McNiel closed the pubiiz hearing. Comm Enterick Stated projects are feasible if the landowner djust costs downwards to reflect what the ..deals of the community call ;cur° .,_ -a specific parcel. He could not suppirt the projecv' as it is because i t ;uea f.;ot meet with the zoning code, Commissioner Chitiea stated it was important to go forth with the trail plan. If there was some method to allow the project to 'keep the six lots and keep the trail, she would support this idea. Findings could be based on the adjacent property, above and below, because it is possible that those lot sizes are within or slightly below the rang, that has been proposed. It is essential to retain the trail and shr. would ; tie to see what alternatives to reaching the solution are, Commmmissio;,er Chitiea stated they are trying to promote a community aide trail eas,; to :Pest. Chairman McNiel reopened the public he,_ring. Mr. Smelzer, Engineering Consultant, stated his consent to a`\ ,te month continuance for a variance. Planning Commission Minutes 11- ' September 9, 1987 Comnissinner Chitiea movr:d to continue to October 14, 1987, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY LACES; Cf.,4MISSIO `RS; t'ONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * -- carried S. MODIFICATION TO TENTATIVE TRACT `2659 - SLORITY MANAGEW.NT - A reques�o e e- e ccn itions�'- approva requiring ins -1 atiba of bleachers and an announcers stand within the equestrian lot of residential subdivision of 135 single family and three commcn lots on v7.b/ acres of land in the Eery Low Reidentijl District (1 -2 dwelling units per;lcre) withni the Etiwanda''Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and "oath Street - APH 225 - 011 -35. M. TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 DESIGN REVIEW - SECURITY MANAGEMENT - Design l_ Review of ui ing elevations an plot plans as previously approved tract map Consisting of 135 single single family lots and 3 coamon tote on 67.67 acres of land in the very Low Density Residential District (1 -2 dwelling units per ac ;e) within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24t% Street - ArN 225 - 011 -35. Scott Murphy, ,ssa:iate Planner, presented the combined staff re0orts. Mr. Gary Mitchell, 9330 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, Pl anni i,g and. Engineering Consultants for this project, addressed the modifications to the conditions requested and the additional conditions required or recommended by staff. They felt the range of potent al uses of the equestrian center lead to the concern of the lack of pai,kin9, liability for the bleachers and the provision of a pad and utilities for the announcers booth. He pointed out that this project rias approved prior` to the City's own planning program resulting in an outstand;ng recreational and equestrian recreational Facility i1i Heritage Park. Therefore, when this project was originally proposed and considered by the Commission, there was some thought t@iis equestrian facility might be used for comaui.,ty equestrian events. Mr. Mitchell does not believe this will be the pr;mar;; u,e for this facility since he feels it will be used as a neighborhood project oriented on -sste recreational fa --ility. In regards to the utility line relocation, this sitp does not border the south side of 24th Street. The Etiwanda Specific Plan does requi:,e a 85 foot wide landscaped buffered strip along the south side of 24th Street; this area is currently owned in fee title by the Metropolitan Water District and the district has never appr -- -ied or granted their permission to encroach within this area. If this property was developed by MWD, Planning Commission Minutes -1.2- September 9, 1987 is they mould be responsible for the undergrounding of the small e:A sting overhead utility lin" at this site. Therefore, they feel the requirement for undergrounding the lines should be' deleted by the Commission for the fact that it is not within their property boundaries. In addition, in regards to the provision of the landscaping along the south side of 24th Street, they are proposing to accomplish the special community entry statement. They are concerned over the timing of their ?eceiving permission from the MWD to encroach into their property and would suggest consideration should the encroachment . permission from the MWO be withheld. Perhaps a perfondance bond or guarantee would be suitable for the ultimate provision for the facility. Mr. Pete Pitassi, representing Pitassi - Dalmau, stating they have responded to the architectual palate for the Etiwanda area and have incorporated a number of items suggested in the Etiwanda Plan. They feel the design of the units is appropriate for the area.. In response to the issue of porchesi> they have designed in the two- story units extended front overhanC areas with columns which could be designed for porches if desired §y "the homeowners. Chairman McNiel O —sad the public hearing. Cormmissio -ter Chitiea stated the changes from the Trails Committee should be pr ressed and recorded concurrently wi'ch the map with prior, approval of 1.6e Trails Committee, In regard to the bleachers, she felt it would :e appropriate to have law -rise type units to give people some elevation to see into the arena. With respect to the announcers booth, something that would provide simple shelter and possibility for food and drink sales would be recommended. She also is concerned that the equestrian lot be hei in common for equestrian use in perpetuity. She requests the City be made party to the covenant and restrictions for Lot. A so that in time if a particular group of people decide they do not like horses cannot change the Wle. She would like protection for all the people who`buy into this development that this will be the use. Mr. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated one of th conditions requires the improvements be completed prior to the release," of occupagcy of the dwelling. As for maintaining them as equestrian' areas, there - will have the approved site plan and the added condition that the arena area shall be maintained for equestrian purposes and shall be maintained by the homeowners association. At that point, the CCRs for this cnmmunity. Commissioner Chitiea was t,:ncerned about the use being dropped. She would like to have some assurance for the City that the use will be :maintained since this particular development was given certain density bonuses in exchange for allowing of a centralized equestrian lot. This deviation to the equestrian overlay area of Etiwanda must maintain the rural concept. Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 9, 1987 Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would like to see a couple tt<Y "the a;evations include porches to comply with one of --the elements of the { Etiwanda Specific Plan and a fine marketing point. Chairman McNiel expressed his support for the low -rise bleachers and addressed the need for a announcers /refreshment facility. Commissioner Tolstoy supported the need for provisions for a refreshment facility with shelter /shade. Barrye Hansom, Senior Civil Engineer, stated in re9wds to undergrounding this is like a standard street improvement. He stated the applicant is -going-to do the street and therefore trey would do the utilities like any other project. If these utilities Yore in a flood control right -of -way or a railroad right -of -sway, adja(�ent projects are required to underground those. All the general theories lead to the undergrounding of the utilities. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated that state law protects the developer when improving on an off -site or lardy he doesn't control. There is a 1 aw which basically gets the developer an out, In addition, cash sureties can be placed in order for occupancy for landscaping with > MlD. Commissioner Tolstoy stated some type of verbage should be included to protect the: developer from the delay of the agency, Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the project with the tmodifications regarding Project A, recordation of final changes on Lot A and the inclusion of low -rise bleachers. Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS? NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -NONE Item M - Coimmissioner Tolstoy moved to approve the project with the amendment of porches on two elevations and that they be approved by the City Planner, Commissioner . Chitiea seconded the motion. notion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKF_SLEY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * ** -- ca,ried Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 9, 198y y 2 Kw L. I0r4S - Planning Commission kecessed 11,00 - Planning Cowission Reconvened NT the southeas%{te general Industrial 11 ist �'ct 121.19, 23-26. Related of Rochester Avenue and Related File: DR 87_26. J Subarea 8 313 Arrow Rout located at e APU ��9_ DTstri - -1-arm Teet on 29,4 acres'of' Tnau,;fr , utnMANl (subarea g land in the Generalgindustrial and Rochester } located on the southeast corner of applicant is requestin- APN 229 - 121 -19, 23_26, Arrow Route Tentative Parcel Map 10$ Tree Remove? Permit 87-58. n addTtT4na the Debra Related File, Meier, Associate Planner and Presented the combined staff Joe Stofa reports. Associate Civil Engineer, thelunc ar Chitiea questioned if there were the lunch areas. pedestrian connections to Ms, Meier stated this appl; cant on several occasions something that was to ?reed about with the The aPplicant would be willing a solution did not delineating a path but a solutito did nsc7u in present itself, arrangement throughout the entire g on the order of striping project. appear fora textured pavement Joe 5tofa, Associate Civil Engineer including the private drive would be cflm� ?��e� Of the fiTal map, the suet improvements prior to the recordation Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing, Mr, Andy Miner, Development Planner Company stated this deve, for the J Highway }and Rochester u ent wiz! be in a 84rmant Deve ?o (d) the word , Avenue, Mr, Miner statedathatyinrte Resolution t together with the +co dint beaadded then stat,ri +; e at Arrow to the public health applicable thereto willtnot the be detrimental Properties or improvements ety* or welfare, +� or c �°a^ial l conditions is the landsca iri vicinit , Y idjurious to Difision conditions p 9 along the freewa he only exception to the Rey +iew Committee leaviriem viii, This conditi n comet after the Design Miner detailed the Condition sand tfe, Y, Planning the this condition since it is tied time frame for the a has not been t there was aloe of applicant- Mr, Prep to Ca ?Trans landscape criteria which The City will probably do the maintenance of Planning Co - Tssion Minutes September 9, 1987 7 this landscape maintenance district. Mr. Miner does understand what the City is trying to do they want to Improve the image along the freeway where the majority of the industrial uses are which is a good concern. They do agree with the staff report and all of the other conditions within it. Mr. Bob Burnett, part owner of the property, concurred with Mr. Miner's comments. He stated that the freeway, landscaping issue was made aware to them the week prior and they understand the city's goal but believed this particular condition needs to .,have a broader look which may be addressed by the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Jeff Schloesser, representing Schloesser Forge, stated the y=_hration from his company to the large amount of glass might present a distraction or problem. He stated that in a two -story wilding the vibration is quite noticeable in his building and the second floor is supported by a long beam which acts as a bow for the vibrations. Ir addition, Mr. Schloesser believed in tb; agreement of the 40 -year agreement with the City citing the 6 ause With the respect to notification to prospective tenants and wAs unsure if the new owners were aware of this. Schloesser Forge '��ill be doing construction directly acrole-,the street from this develop..pent in a similar time frame and there wil,:: ;:ye undergrounding being done. He felt if some of the unuergrounding could be done concurrently, there could be some savings to both owners of the properties.. He fe"rt Mr. Burnett was not completely aware of the operation of Schloesser Forge and its impacts. Mr. Miner clar-t"fied that these buildings are one -story buildings and the glass is mainly for an architectual impact ar ='`: vision glass, Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, clarified the statevnt regarding the developer would be eligible for one -half of the cost -reimbursement from across the street which is not true. "there are utilities on both sides of the street so the developer would be eligible for a partial reimbursement but not one -half as stated in the staff report. Chairman McNiei closed the public hearing. Chairman McNiel commented that landscaping along the freeway is aiot lire undergrounding it should be done but the t,W ng is not always ours to cont.—ol. 8rsd Buller, City Planner, stated as far as Redevelopment ass - stance, iedevelopment dollars have not been placed nor considered for use for freeway landscaping. Commissioner Emerick suggested that landscaping he installed prior to release of occupancy for the final building of the project, a substitute such as in -lieu fees, a cash bond, or sureties could be used if it can not be worked ovt prior to occupancy. Mr. Emerick also was concerned with the landscaping with the part of the building facing the freeway. Planning Commission Minutes -16- September 9, 1987 a A p, 9 Rai Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, suggested a cash band could be im Ipted if the ra.ndscaping is not installed. by the time of the ce,,,,__,zate of occupancy. Chairman McNiel stated the site -line vier from the- ,freeway this could not be seen. Commissioner Chitiea stated shifting the burden to the Redevelopment Agency is not realistic with all the projects. Commissioner jolstoy stated the freeway should present a good image of the City. Chairman McHiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Miner suggested the additional landscaping be put.in now and they agree to do some trees along tt� right -of -way. Will the City be able to work something out with CalTra,. -?and the City maintain it? Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated the only way it is going to go in is if the governmental agency guarantees CalTranae that they will maintain it for the next twenty years. - Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve Item L with the modifications including the language if the lant'scape was not installed, some type of cash bond shall be placed. Comm— . *sicner jolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Item K - Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the Tentative Parcel Map, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the 61 lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:, "NONE * * * * * * /i carried N. APPEAL OF TREE REMOVAL PERMIT :.B7 -43 - Appeal of staff's decision denying the removal ot eleven 1 ucaiyptus trees located in the rear yard of 9538 Gala Avenue - APN 202- 111 -E9. Planning Commission Minutes -17- September 9, 1987 L l! Commissioner Tolstoy, because of a long -time association with the applicant, asked permission to abstain and was absent from the public hearing. Toms Grahn, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr, and Mrs. Ronald Bencomo, 9538 Gala Avenue, Alta,Loma, appellants, stated the trees restrict.; the use of the back yard and maintaining a lawn is quite difficult. Mr. Bencomo addressed his concerns relating to issues of obtaining usable land for the backyard, having a 5wimmming pool built, the size of the yard to warrant so many trees, and future wind protection. Mr. Carl Sartaga, neighbor of the Bencomo's stated his support of the t►ee removal. Chairman McNiel closed the public he4r�kg, ,r Chairman McNiel stated the tree (Ainance is for the protection of all trees to preserve the rural character of Rancho Cucamonga. Certain conditions are placed upon developers to replace trees to maintain th(i character of the City. The object is to attempt to preserve some of thf) things that snakes Rancho Cucamonga what it is, a nicer place to lave. i He stated they didn't want to lose the concept of the windrow. These may be a possibility of removing a tree or two. Commissioner 3lakesley stated he concurred with Chairman McNiel and felt removal of one or two of the trees would be permissible. Commissioner E;merick stated he was impressed by the fact that the back yard was small upon his inspection and felt that forcing trees in the backyard of small lots would have to have second consideration. He thought that the lot was too small to accommodate :a windrow of Eucalyptus trees and the trees did interfere with the the intended use of the backyard, including a swimming pool. These trees grow to 60 - 80 feet in height and would impede the view and sunlight in the y ,J ?rd. - Mrs. Bencomo stated she felt the removal of two to three tree;, /Iwauld not make a great deal of difference. They would tike to see ,'all of the trees removed. { Commissioner Chitiea stated since the appellant was not agreement with working with staff for a small number of trees being ; /emoved, pis. Chitiea agreed an integrity of windrows must be maintainedlj The reason the flood control area went in where it did was to protectlthe hoaxes so the developer could develop the tract. That's why the wineiows came out initially. The trees are there for the visual effect to maintain the character of the City. E Planning Commission Minutes -18- September 9, 1587 n! '771 J .h �I Mrs. Bencomo stated she fel t that the situation could be more easily assessed if the Commissioners could actually see it and felt since no one; has seen it, their request has not been taken into serious consideration. Commissioner BlakesleY moved to deny the appeal, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CKITIEA, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONtS: EMERICK, TOLSTOY Commissioner Emerick \;clarified ,l:i "Abstain" vote for the reasons previously stated. n DIRECTOR'S REPORT 11" , P. NIGH RISE ORDINANCE ] FOOTHILL FIRE DIS',RICT Chief Lloyd Almand of the Foothill Fire District presented a slide demonstration and how the Ordinance might affect site development and architect. Q. ANTENNA STUDY /87- 86.WORK.PROGRAM Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. After discussion, the Planq� ng Commissib6 agreed with the scope of work and recommended a low priority IV. ADJO6IRMMEMT Motion: Moved by Chitiea, seconded bw Toistoy, unanimously carried, to adjourn. Planning Commission Adjourned - 1:25 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes -19- September 9, 1987 TIFF" low Fj Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Is : Planning Commission Minu"s -20- September 9, 1987 A Chairman Larry WRiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga P1ann�,,Ing ,Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiei then led in the pledge-.-.,of allegiance. ROLL CAiLL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Suzanne Chitiea (arrived at 7:35 Bruce Emerick, Peter Tolstoy, and Larry McNiel COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner; Scott Murph+, Associate Planner; Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner; Miki Bratt, Assistant Planner; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supirvisor;, Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson -2eputy City Attorney; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. ANNOUNC XK7S Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that David Blakesley and Suzanne Chitiea would be arriving late for the meeting. Mr. Buller also stated that Item Q would be added to the agenda regarding the NovembAr and December regular meeting dates for the Planning Commission meetings. CONSENT CALENDAR 0 A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -28 - MESSENGER - �1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting September 23, 1987 Chairman Larry WRiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga P1ann�,,Ing ,Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held at the Lions Park Community Center, 9161 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman McNiei then led in the pledge-.-.,of allegiance. ROLL CAiLL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Suzanne Chitiea (arrived at 7:35 Bruce Emerick, Peter Tolstoy, and Larry McNiel COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Planner; Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner; Greg Gage, Assistant Planner; Scott Murph+, Associate Planner; Cynthia Kinser, Assistant Planner; Miki Bratt, Assistant Planner; Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supirvisor;, Russ Maguire, City Engineer; Barrye Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer, Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer; Betty Miller, Assistant Civil Engineer; Joe Stofa, Associate Civil Engineer; Ralph Hanson -2eputy City Attorney; and Karen Kissack, Planning Commission Secretary. ANNOUNC XK7S Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that David Blakesley and Suzanne Chitiea would be arriving late for the meeting. Mr. Buller also stated that Item Q would be added to the agenda regarding the NovembAr and December regular meeting dates for the Planning Commission meetings. CONSENT CALENDAR 0 A. RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -28 - MESSENGER - i; t The request for a ?aster Conditional Use Permit to allow Business Support Services, tdnVenience Sales and Service, Food and Beverage Sales in Buildings 1, 2 and 3 of an approved industrial business r park, in the General Industrial District, Subarea 2, located on the south side of Arrows Highway at Bear Gulch Place - APN 249- fl1�',14. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -31- TURNER R DEVELOPMLNT - A proposal eve op a multi-tenant i4 us fla par cons —°�`ITnj of 3 buildings totaling 142,500, square feet "on 7.29 acres in the General Industrial District, Sudarea 5, located vast of Lucas Ranch Road and north of 4th Street - APR 210 - 071 - 39,57 .. Commissioner Toistoy moved to approve the Consent Calendar, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion. Kotion was carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, MCNIEL HOES: COPRAISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA * * * * * * -- carried Commissioner David Blakesley arrived at 7 :06 p oi. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. ENVInWENTK, ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10941 - TURNER 1n the fienera Industrial Development G strict, Subarea 5, located on the wrest side of Lucas Ranch Road, north of 4th Street - APR 210 - 071 -57; 39. Barbara Krall, Assistant Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Chai --nn McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Jay Allen, 1200 Quail, Newport Beach, CA, representing Turner Development Co_, stated they concurred with the findings of the staff report. Cha,��aan M1cNiel closed the public hearing, Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve the tentative parcel map, Commissioner Emerick seconded the motion, Motion carried by the following -vote. APES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MjCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes -2- Septer'i -er 23, 1987 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIV -- carried D, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT N40 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 87,01 - ame men e a ,v Municipal Code pertaining to the definitiun of UP- ndated recycling facilities and the criteria for design, ,uuud on and operation of such facilities.` (Continued from August 26, 1587). Greg Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, Chairmen McNiel closed the public heaei ng. i Commissioner Tolstoy stated the Commission ,needs. to pay particular. attention to the retrofitting of existing centers so that`the rec,Yclir facility will fit into the center and not obstruct traffic &M be architectuaily pleasing and compatible. Chairman McNiel questioned the process _,re4arding the facilities' location. - Brad Buller, City Planner, stated as drafted it is an administrative action for the City staff under the City Planner's direction. Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the resolution, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA * * * * * * -- carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 137V - JANSSENS - A. residential su1: division Of single fawly la on 3.53 acres of land in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located at the southwest corner of Carnelian Street and Highland Avenue - APN 201 - 214 -11. ( Cuntinued from September 9, 1987). Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the applicant has submitted a latter requesting continuance to October 14, 1987 end ,.taff supports this recommendation. Planning Commission Minutes -3- September 23, 1987 Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick moved continuance to Octob4rIj 1917, Commis sioner k 3lakesley seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY l NOES: U.OMAISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CNITIEA F. ENVIRONMENTAL: ASSESSMENT A;:9 GENERAL PLAY AMENDMENT 87 -04A - JOE U11UK1U /1nt UAKSN 4NNit'ANT r. A request to amcna the Lana Use Map of Tffe- General Plan rom ow Density Residential'-.- dwelling units per acre) to Com ercial for approximately three 'uc ;z , 1 —ated on the east side of Milliken Ave�uC) north of Highland Avenue - APN 225 - 141 -29. _ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND OEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT d7-0 ?,- JOE - DI- 1OR10/rHE- ARYN -Z` - An application to amend, the eve opmen - District %-p--rr-on Caryn Planned Community to Neighborhood Commercial for approximately three acres, located on the east side of Millikeh Avenue, north ofi Highland Avenue .- APN 225- 141 -29. Brad Buller, City planner, stated' this item was ,withdrawn by the applicant. No further action is necessary. Commissioner Suzanne Chitiea arrived: at 7 :35 p.m, for the greeting. G. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -04B - WEIRICK i RVWI A�5 _ 114 request to amend the Land Use Element of e General ' Pi n from Office to Neighborhood Commercial for 3.58 acres of land, located on the southwest corner of Lomita Court and Archibald Avenue - APN 202 - 151 -33. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMEN 87 -03 - request to amen the Development District Map rom '"ZOftce /Professional) to ONC" (Neighborhood Commercial) for 3.58 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lomita. Court and Archibald Avenue - APN 202- 151 -33. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.l' Mr. Hardy Strozier,,The Planning Associates, 3151 Fairway Avenue, Costa l Planning Commission Minutes j -4- September 23, 1987 ,:. )A -sa, representing Mr. Alan Weirick, clarified their request in the General Plan Amendment zone change as it is actually a mixed land use change that would identify 60 percent retail and 40 percent office use on the site. It was agreed the appropriate mechanists to allow such a commercial office retail mix ,o occur was a commercial land use change both in the Genoral Plan and the zoning map. City Council had recommended in July 1987 that the project be brought back to the Planning commission for the Commission's review of a mixed land use project. The Council indicated they could support a project of ►nixed land use if a significant portion of the site was devoted to office. The Council further noted that the design be compatible and sensitive to the residential character of the neighborhood. Mr. Ctrozier outlined their proposals to the Design Review Committee's concerns and Further analyzed the economic market study done by Dr. Gobar. Chairman Mctliel closed the publi^ nearin3. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planners stated the initial discussions were the result of a city initiated study.. This is the first time a formal ippiication has been done in the last year. Commissioner Emerick pointed out that the interpretation of the term "significant portion of thp site" be devoted to office use cannot simply be computed by the squire footave. The appearance of the site is deceptive as it will take on mach more of the character of commercial than o €fice. Mr. Emerick is not care whether the intent of the Council will be met by the site plan. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that when the :ity was first formed they nad General Plan public hearings. They 'indicated intersections like Baseline and Archibald should have no more than two commercial centers. fir. Tolstoy stated the', the Baseline- Archibald intersec'�Aon is saturated with commercial and his initial feeling is the site in question should continue to be office. There may be a traffic problem if this was a commercial site btt:s::Gc of *e way the driveways are now configured. Commissioner Chitiea concurred with Comm►issiorer Tolstoy`s comments regarding the intersection. The existing land use was designated f•3° the office type use with the idea that the senior project behind wouiu access to medical /dental type facilities, not the corporate headquarters type. Commissioner Chitiea is not in favor of making the General Plan Amendment change. Commissioner Tolstoy further added myhile the market study may have showed the City had too much office space already in place, this may not have been the kind of office space that the office study identifies. There is a need for more office space in this section of the community of a completely different character that the office -space that the marketing study shows. Commissioner Blakesley concurred with all the previous comments. He felt that developing this parcel as commercial may cause -a traffic problem where there is already a traffic problem. Looking north of this Planning Commission Minutes -5 September 23, 1987 area onto 19th Street, there is more of the places where there ; are store- f-ont offices in cormercially zoned areas. Commissioner Blakesley felt tha" office is something that could be viable a:.d he would not support the change. Commissioner s"merick agreed with the other comments and felt w=th; the residential growth of the northern part of Ue City there cold be more need for office use that cater to the residential consumers. Commissi�)ner Emerick felt that the office designation should be kept. Chairman McNiel stated the concept of a)mixed use is not all bad but this particular concept is not what the Commission is trying to es:;ablish. This General Plan Amendment directs the Commission to go from Office /Professional to Fleighborhood,- rnmmercial; possibly -a part of this could be divided and office go into some and senior housing project be expanded; the entire plot of land need not go. from one to commereJ al. Chairman McNidi was not sure whether this �nt4 site should be office but also uncertain that any of it should be frcial. Commission ,jr Chitiea stated she was comfortaa'la -"with the existing office designation because it does allow the appropriate balance of retail as opposed to commercial with office.' Commissioner Tolstoy moved to deny the General Plan Amendment and the Development District ..Amendment, Commissioner Chitiea seconded the motion. Motion carried-,6y the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS. TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * -- carried H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NERAL PLAN AMENDREWT 87 -04C - , INC. - A request amend �he an se Element-of ifie General Plan from Flood Control and Me.Arum Density Residential (8 -14 dwelling units pe? acre) to Low- Medium Density Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre), located oa the southwest corner of banyan and Milliken - APN 201- 271 -55. Development Distric p rom Flood. Control and Medium Density Residential (8--14 dwelling units per acre) to Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) `or 65 acres of land, located on the west side of Mil like -' 4 4Mue, north of Highland Avenue - APN 201- 271 -55. Planning Commission Minutes _6 September 23, 1987 R r 0 .a z I I. I AWL IV Miki Bratt, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned the disposition of the small tridngulart\ piece next to the freeway. He felt this could be a good dInsign element of the project. S4ott Murphy, Associate Planner, responded to the question stating this is flood control now and have not received a response from the district stating the disposition. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mir. Craig Page, representing Ahmanson Development, 2361 E1 Torro Road, El Torro, stated there was one correction of the staff report. He clarified they are proposing the minimum lot size as. 7200 square and not 7bOO square fleet as stated in the staff report. They are otherwise in agreement with the staff report and cannot respond to the question of the disposition of the triangular piece. Chairman lcNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner-,, Tolstoy moved to approve the General Plan Amendment, Commissioner 'Blakesley seconded the motion. Mot"nkn carried by ;the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY cwi'TIEA, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE * * * * * * -- carried Commissioner Chitiea moved to approve the ;;Development District Amendmont, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by tn: following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. NONE * * * * * * carried I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -045 TAC DEVELOPMENT request o amen a General an an Use map mom ow- iuin Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential )24 -30 dwelling units per acre) for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald - APN 208 - 031 -18, 19. Planning Commission Minutes -7- September 23, 1987 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVEi:9PMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87 -05 - TAC DEVELOPMENT - A request to amend the Development Distridts Map Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to High 'Res'dential (24 -30 dwelling units per Acre) attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, 1cr --.ted on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Av,Ae - APN 20840 1 -18, 19. J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENEF!1 PLAN AMENDAENT 87 -04H - TAC DEVELOP14 NT -west to `ame`n3the a Use emen of e�'�al Plan roe+ ow- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre,,-,,to Office for 1..49 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - AN 208 - 031 -17, 54, 55, 56 and 57. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ,(;1:,TRICT'AMENDMENT 87 -06 r-squest to amend the Development Distri-ET-lu—p from Low-Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professioqal for 1.65 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibal&�Averue, south of Base Line Road APN 208 - 031 -17, 54, 55, 56, and 57. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the combined staff reports. Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Alan Dalmau, bassi- Dalmau Architects, 97,90 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they feel they have met with staff recommendations and would like Commission's comments to complete the process. Mr. Herman Rempel, 9505 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he did have a problem with the senior housing but does: have a pro em with the office complex adjacent to the senior project if they are 6ing to have a shared access. This will'�reate traffic problems. Fie a9ib stated his concerns with the office complex being on Archibald. Mr. Dave Pekers, 7422 Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property is next :,to" this project and his primary concergJs what type of water' flow andjlood control provisions are being purses L Mr. Tim Minmackj Civil Engineer for the project, verified that the drainage does exit out onto Archibald Avenue. The property gently drains over toword Archibald and they don"t anticipate any big difference in grade between their site and Mr Peters' property. There could be a two 166t difference in grade to ac'ommodate driveways. Mr. Pete Pitassi, Pitassi- Daimau Architects, 9190 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated regarding the grading thay anticipated lowering the northern U- shaped building lower than Baseline and then the middle portion of the project is 2 112 feet lower than that, and then the southern U- shaped building an additional 2 1/2 feet lower than that. Planning Commission Minutes -8- September 23, 1987 A 11 A Their grading analysis analysis indicates there would approximately two feet of fill that would slope down the property line and the drainage would be handled with either a swale or a retaining wall in addition ,,,o a garden wall that would sepavate the project fr m the property to the south. The, intended use is a medical office bujAit ^a. 25-000 square feet, and {t is integral to the project as a w,.tole aria compliments each other. Traffic coul4 pull into the propert; off Baseline and exit onto l Archibald and it is the intent to <tinY th', project ,►ko {; only with I[ pedestrian access but also with vehicular access. There" will be a substantial grade point at the,--point too. Chairsan McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chftiea stated that the senior project is an appropriate one and the idea `,of having low rents available would be appropriate. A medical facility adjacent is appropriate also. The circulation through both projects is important to discuss. Responding to Mr. Rempel "s comments, she questioned whether pedestrian circulation is what the Commission is looking for or actually linking traffic through and what would be the repercussions of doing so. She would Like to see more specific information regarding the water flow down Archibald at this location, Mr. Peters does se a legitimate concern as this would be a substantial area of lard c.. ning onto his property. Conceptually, she likes the ,idea of 1ir.'ing the two projects in some manner. A senior project in this location might be appropriate. Commissioner Tolstoy stated ti,�% water situation would have to be taken care of when they bring in the site plan for Design Review and thinks the senior project is a good one there. The surrounding retail center; ;re there to serve people who are not able to drive and feels this is a good use for this piece of property. He is concerned with the General Plan Amendment which changes residential property to the office designation. Chairman McNiel stated there are going to be many more applica'-ions for senior projects. Associated with most senior projects, there will not be space for medical office and from his point -of -view, Commission should t,te a good look Est what is being praoosed. - Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Mr. Terry A. Christensen, TAC Development, stated that there is interest by area doctors to move into the medical office complex. He felt the seniors would do better entering and exiting on BaseT,;ne where the traffic is less. Mr. Herman Rempel, former Planning Commissioner, stated there is a need for some type of facility for people who need medical care. This driveway already back ups and so does the driveway on Archibald so that a left turn in to the project would be a problem. A convalescent home is a good use to tie in with the senior housing project. Ms, Wilma Brenner, speaking on behalf of area senior citizens, stated a convalescent home in this location would not be appropriatg. She Planning Commission Minutes -9- September 23, 1987 A roPri ate *.o the complex adaacerit,is aPP close they can dual Office like out this nted that a Seniar citizens s are loving Fore and more seni� nce .there are some more senior housing p� 3�t' a County real to have adjacent to walk to and burs Angeles and orange direction fro*_ Los e. This facility would be g freedoms in this area. Wit. the senior housing prof roJect continue see this P addr ssed in of workhng out some of the issues pr; Ccmmissioner Sibility stated she would like to uses in and the Pos the intensity of discussion. This pr will see stated h4s concerntr thmatter what dlrectlOR it Commissioner BlakesleY and egress, land use Point- of -V1ew, this o,ea' all of the ingress and the from a ingress this problems. �e for parcels traffic P hest u" there is faces. The Item d since would be residential' Stated he could not support Commissioner Tolstoy support t As much office. seniors could just too how many intersection already h. Emerick questidnthis.,particular genera more Commissioner icK q and this '. He feels office 9 medical fahea y traffic tong extremely traffic congestion- public hearing. 1987 ened the Pu Ito the October, 28, Chairman McNiel op,..t�on carried by continue Item ;.; Commissioner BlakesleY seconded the ot�on. Commissioner Chitiea waved � TOLSTQY meetings vote: EhtERI ,K, KtAIEL, the following CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, ,YES: COMMISSIONERS: COWISSIQNERSi; -BONE NOES: 11QE --carried ABSE''T: COWISSIONERS: N d. * * * * * * the October 28, 19$7 to continue Item J to carried by the Com�mI ,Ig chairmaniea moved Motion Mc Niel seconded the motion. meeting, vote: TOLSTOY following CNITIEA, MCHIEL, BLAKE, pOWISSIOHER5: AYES: " ' EMERIGK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ONE E ABSENT: COW4ISSIOHERSs N clarified his. no vote for the reasons stated in Commissioner Emerjck carried text. * * * * * September 23, }987 U 9 :00 P.M. - Planning Commission Recessed 9:25 P.M. - Planning Commissiop Reconvened 9:25 P.M. - In the absence of Chairman McNiel, Vice Chairman Chitiea -�nA�vcted the meeting. K. ENVIRONM AL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 87 -09 - Ce» An amendment change the Developme ni District e'igna ions rom the existing designations to Foothill Boulevard Sp,,ctfic Plan (F.S.P.) for all properties adjacent,to Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to the Deer Creek Channel and from the I -15 Freeway to East Avenue within the Foothil Boulevard Specific Plan area. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearing. Since there were no public comments, V ce Chairman Chitiea closed the public Nearing. Commissioner Emerick moved to approve the resolution, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS. EMERICK, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA NOES; COl]MISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CQRj,'ISSIONeRS: MCNIEL L. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -14 - GREENVIEW ESTATES - Tne aevelopment or 14u multi- tamlly Units on lu.lb acres off' -land. in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue - APN 207 - 201 -30, 41, 42 and 43. Associated with the development is Tree Removal Permit 87 -62 requesting the removal of a number of trees scattered throughout the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13650 - GREENVIEW reside 7a'r -su ivisioNs and design review of ^^- Vnhome units on 10.15 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue - APN 207 - 201 -30, 41, 42 and 43. Associated with the development is Tree Removal Permit 87 -62 requesting the removal of a number of tress scattered throughout the site. Planning Commission Minutes -11- September 23, 1987 townhome units on 10,15 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8 -14 dwelling units per acre), located at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue t APN 207 - 202 -0, 41, 42 and 43. Associated with the 'development is Tree Removal Permit 87 -62 requesting the removal of a number. of trees s�.ztt�kred throughout the site. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public nearing. The applicant; was not present, Commissioner Emerick moved coAtinuance t"tober 14, 1887., Commissioner Talstoy questioned because of the aroject's proximity to Foothill Boulevard if there have b=ien any noise study requirem"ts. Mr. Murphy responded there was one done earlier and there were no mitigation based on the setback of the units that seemed to be necessary. {_ Commissioner Tolstoy stated it would be better to allow the trees,"ar`be removed and replaced with an appropriate replacement. CoCissionev Blakesley seconded the motioct to continue until October 14, 1987. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, TOLSTOY NOES: !COMMISSIONERS: NOME ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT * * * * * -- carried M. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSML, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13.541 - ALLMARK - The development of o cus m gUbdiViSion on acres'�Tand'in the Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre), located north of Red Hill -Country Club Drive at Sierra Vista - APY 207 -411» 10, 207- 080 -01 and 48. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Chitiea questioned if there was an emergency access iocated at the southern tip of Sierra Vista as redesigned. Mr. Murphy responded there was not an emergency access. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the length of SiWi Vista. Planning Commission Minutes -12- September 23�1J987 t b r Murphy responded over 1200 feet. Vice Chairman Chitii�r-°6pened the public hearing. Mr, Tony Mize, representing Allmark, Inc., the applicant, stated after going through the appaa process they were directed to redesign-. There were a number of suggestions given at the Council level and later discussed them with z coG ?le of the council memoers, In order to address the main basis of the appeal, which was stated in the appeal letter, "therefore, we respectfully request the City Council either to overrule the Plar:hing Commission decision or uphnad the dw_43sion with the revised condition that Sierra Vista remain,a closed while also providing emergency vehicle access." One of the suggestions was to bl:'ng Sierra Vista from Country Club Drive up to the - ,existing dead end of Sierra Vista with a cul -de -sac and also having Sierra Vista from the north down to the south be a.'cul -de -sac. This would have given Allmark a spiit development with two lots north of the cui -de -sac with those people coming one way, two lots south with the other people coming up Sierra Vista which they didn't feel dealt with; the qurction. There was a desire that this not be a four -way intersection. Thy access question had to be addressed. Presently the distance from, Camino Sur to the present dead end is 1230 feet. By bringing the access through=the alley two lots further north, they reduce that distance by 180 f"et and also it really becomes a through circulation which was one ?f the main concerns about the integrity of the development. This would have created at the very south end two lots whose front yards were directly beside the back yards of Lot 12 and 13 which they did not feel was in any way what they were trying to accomplish as to the marketability and value. This design backs up Lots 7 and 3 to the existing Lots lZ and 13, backyard to backyard. They feel they have addressed substantially all of the issues; they have closed off Sierra Vista and Country Club intersection and have provided the- secondary emergency access through the alley system shortening the present distance of 1300 feet' i some 150 - 175 feet and creating a totally through circulation situation.,, Michelle Lindley, 8479 Camino Sur -`stated she felt two issues were`'neing overlooked that the City. Council made rl-,ar the night they made their decision 1) the aesthe *i<: ;r, of the tw, ;ommrunities coming. together in" one existing street. ThC-e,`are sever' ;problems that she feels would not work. The stree;,`is still only W feet wide paving to driveable surface that would run into that 36 -40 of driveable space. Apparently, they are planning to just put barricades at the ends of the sidewalks and whatever go into their neighborhood which has no curbs, no s?,dewaiks, no street lights, anythzng of that nature. She felt this did out provide any aesthetic quality. 2) a hazard of those two streets joining each other, 36 feet going into 20 feet, this issue was greatly discussed at the City Council meeting. She felt this is still hasn't been addressed at all and still feels this is a great hazard. Other than that the thoroughfare has been eliminated, she did not feel this was a plausible solution to the problem. Dr. Joseph A. Powers, 8506 Country Club Drive, stated he originally Planning Commission Minutes -13- September 23, 1987 £?' objected to the through street and meant to be a street and they felt create a hazard. Dr. Powers thinks has addressed many of the problems as it is, the lot between 13 and 12 was never that it shouldn't be, it would only the project looks very adequate and and he is in accord for the project Mr. Lloyd Almand, Division�;Chief Marshal of foothill Fire Protection District stated two concerns with the project as it is now but felt they could be rectified if the developer is willing to work with them - 1) Emergency Access. Within the Foothill Fire Protection District, tvtV have a legal ordinance, Ordinance #10, which stipulates that all emergency access sautes Aust be a minimum of 26 feet wide. The alley will n(+t provide the required width to maneuver and negotiate their equipment,.if they use HhkA route. The alley route may be shorter that going around and if it was widened to 26 feet, they r-k find this route may be used more than any other one and may be a real asset to all the residents in the area so far as emer�ency response. 2) tA- Utenance along the alley way, there are large trees and vegetation .. ".ong there that woO d have to be maintained. it is his understanding that this would be some sort of a uedicated alley that the City wov a AAintain, and if this was the case, then the problem would be resolved. .he trees mould have to be maintained at a minimum height of 14`u" io order for the apparatus to clear sufficiently. That problem now occurs at the main entry of Monte Vista up to where the al %ey would turn and head due noruh. If these problems were corrected, they could probably live with -Loat as an emergency access. Commissioner Tolstoy ruestione'' if Red Foil Drive were to be brought over to Sierra vista between Lots 5 and 6, would this not be a better solution. Chief Almand stated this would eliminate two crzr� s and cut the response time down considerably and would be a better solution. Jessie Defrees, 8500 Red Hill, Lot 13, stated from his point -of -view this solution looks pretty good and feels this may be the most practical solution for the propertv and supports the proposal. Mr. Steve Sensenbach 7428 Sierra vista, stated he has stated h1s strong opposition before and feels the developer has work>id very diligently with the City and now has come up with a reasonable solution to this. He would like to see the project go forward with one reservation. This is a rural atmosphere and there are certain ordinances in town that require curb, butter, and sidewalk, and other improvements. The only thing he is asking is keeping the rural atmosphere around Sierra Vista by Iifting some of the restrictions. They would like to see the project go forward. Tom Lindley, 8479 Camino Sur, commented on Commissions:'s Tolstoy remark in making Red Hill Drive going through to Sierra Vista. They would be Planning Commission Minutes -14- September 23, 1987 \ mare comfortable with what has been proposed by `the developer, rather than pushing Red Hill Drive straight through and make it more a straight line access and more appealing for people to use rather than what the, 'w developer has proposed. Mr. Tony Mize stated in talki,►g with Brad Buller, City Planner and Russ Maguire, City Engineer, the same issue about Red Hill Drive going through to Sierra Vista was brought up. If it is punched straight through, it is more of a direct route with a little more speed. However the alley as proposed is wide'enough` for a fire truck. They had the two alternatives and they chose this one for the sam% reasons Mr. Lindley mentioned. Commissioner Chitiea questioned the issue about thl proposal that is 20 feet wide and Chief Almand needs 26 feet wide. Mr. Mize stated the existing pavement is 16 feet and they were directed to widen it to 20 feet and overlay the entire surface. Chief Almand is stating that it is to be 26, so they would be adding ten (10) more feet and overlaying. Mr.. Mize further stated they would be willing to do this. Ben Mackel, 7973 Valley Vista, Lot 18, stated this should not be cul -de- sac'd and put through to Red Hill Country Club Drive for emergency access for a fast response for sheriff and fire-,,md coming through Lots 5 and 6 definitely would give a faster responsd . ; e. This is something that public safety___ shoul d take precedence and he supports the is alternative. ':ice Lnairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, stated the widths had been discussed at City Council on why 36 feet acd they only had 20 feet. The existing 20 feet of pavement right now is for the driving lane; they do not park on that. They either park on the dirt or in a number of cases the property owners have added six - eight eet of pavement and they park on the pavement. The 36 foot width allows for 20 feet in the middle for the through lanes and 16 feet (8 feet on either side) for parking. The conclusion was really no decision on the Council to find incompat t1lity in the use of parking on both sides of the street with lanes up the middle as opposed to the existing street which you really cannot park on the pavement except in areas where the private property has widened the street in front of his house. The ordinance clearly well ties them into 36 feet, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, no option left to engineering nor the Council unless the ordinance was amended. There was a discussion about a way to try to do something about the sidewalk and everyone agreed about curb and,qutter for drainage and edge control but no body was willing to advance a code amendment to eliminate it from the code. Commissioner ToTstoy commented that City Council is sending this project back with the message that Sierra Vista was not to go through. Mr. Planning Commissicr-- 11anutes -15- September 211, 1987 Tolstoy felt there is two possible solutions: 1) Extend Red Hill Drive between Lots 5 and 6 to Sierra Vista and knuckle it there or leave the turnaround to try to disguise the :act that there is a through street there. The better solution is 2) cul -de -sat Sierra Vista at the end of the existing tract and construct a new street from Red Hill Country Club Drive and .ul;de »sac it against the previous cul -de -sac. This is like a double cul- do,sac and this could be done with an offset through and turf blocking it it some treatment so it would not be obviously a through street. The solution presented is not a good one. Commissioner Blakesley concurred with Commissioner Tolstoy's comments and has a particular problem with the fact that an access drive is created through backyards on the south side_, and on the east. Mr. Blakesley felt that punching the access through Lots 5 and 6 is not a bad solution and doesn't see it as a real nazard as far as creating some circulation pattern. Commmissioner T(stoy stated the only problem with this is that it does create A t ;rough street wF)ich the City Council felt was not a good idea, !I Commissioner Blakesley stilted he still favors the Planning Commission's original approval, Acceslt could also be provided off Red Hill Country Club Drive cn that sa;ae'',,lccation which the street wound have gone through to the cul -de -sac its proposed and this gives another way to come in. Commissioner Tolstoy suggested the 4,91 icant go back and take a look a: both alternatives, Mr. Tors"toy stated he has always felt a cul -de -sac as long as this is a real problem. Vice Chairperson Chitiea reopened the public hearing. Mr. Tony Mize stated at the City Council session it was stated by the Council and the City Attorney the applicant had two choices: 1) have the map denied and start all over again or 2) return to the Planning Commission level and address one question and one question only, that being the basis of the appeal that Sierra Vista Drive should not connect to Red Hill Country Club Drive. The applicant was told at the Council meeting that there was no other issue that would be disc�.:sed at the Planning Commission. They feel they have addressed all the issues and do not want to cut the development into pieces and that's what the suggestion that has been ,,ought forward will do. Mr, hize wanted a clarification, were they misinformed at the City Council level as to what they were sent back to Planning Commission to do. Ralph Hanson, Deput• City Attorney, stated he did not know what exactfy was stated at the Council meeting. What appears to be the case if the Council wished to retain jurisdiction over this whole matter, they could have simply 'continued the matter and sent it down for advisory opinion. In fact, they didn't continue the matter and kicked down the Qntire matter back to Planning Commission, essentially dery ng the application without prejudice and without need to refile. Till triggers Planning Commission Ainutes -16- September 23, 1987 - -- R ." our own subdiv W�on standards and grants the power again to this Comlmtission to review or deny, Mr. Mize questioned if he was incorrect in his assumption that there was one issue to be addressgkL-and that was the basis of the appeal. li Brad Buller, City Planner, recalled that the Council heard the appeal -ants' concerns with a through street and directed Staff to Mork, with the applicant on alternatives, not necessarily one alternative, but alternatives to addressing their concerns they had with a thro►.gh street. Mr. Buller stated he.did not toKe that the Council said no access whatsoever out onto Red Hill Country Club Drive. Mr. Mize questioned the Deputy City Attorney what the a3ternatives were, could they go back to the City Cliuncil z,,s an O ternative even if it bounces them back to the Planning Commission. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stared they coj1 d go back to Council by way of an appeal. Mr. Hanson statEt`,he could not see how the City Council has retained jurisdiction or this matter, this is a whole new application by their own laws of this body- 14% Markwan was granting the applicant the benefit of having them back tt Piarniry ti. =e'en with the application. If the Council had acted on the application that night, it would have Leen apparently been a denial that would have precluded the applicant coming back with any similar appJication for another year. Brad Buller, City Plamer, in response to Mr. Mize and Comsissioner Toistoy; clarified the solution presented tonight was not shown at the City Council meeting. The only solution shown was a through street, however there was a concept (sketched out on the oveohead) showing a double cul -de -sac. Commissioner Emerick moved to close the public hearing. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Emerick felt the whole matter was under discussion as an entire tract, not just tre street design whether it connects to Red Hill Country Club drive, He would go along with the City Attorney, if the matter was kicked back to Planning ','omission we would have jurisdiction under the Subdivision Map Act to `.,%ok at the entire effect. If they Council wants to reject all of the Planning Commission's opinions or decisions, they can choose to do so. Commissioner Tolstoy stated since the City Council kicked it back to the Planning Commission with the direction that a through ,treet would not be acceptable, he would assume that his firsts suggestion of extending Red Hill Drive through Lots 5 and 6 to the cul -de -sac would not reml4 solve the problem. He suggestea laving a double. cult- de-,ac. Planning Cokimission Minutes -17- September 23, 1987 Commissioner Emerick questioned if this solution would encourage people coming up Country Club Drive to make a shortcut on Red Hill Drive now that it connects to Sierra Vista and maybe short cut trips as opposed to going on alternative routes. Then these people would be ,Visited with the very thing they are trying to discourage, additional tri,!fic on that street. Planning Commissf9a Minutes -:.5- Septesaber 23, 1987 Commissioner Emerick stated he would be iigatnst that and is not uncomfortable with the - design as it is even if it went through from Red ,J Hill Drive between Lots 5 and tj and cutting off essentially ar, inverted "U" and if they widen the alley, there will be some more response time. Commissioner Blakesley stated he stills prevers the solution of Red HiTi ". through Lots 5 and 6. In regards to tle double cul -de -sac, one of the Ri-Qblems with that was if the street goes. through all the wat• down, the, is-a little more traffic at that „interse^_ do - -� a potentially difficult intersection. This increa the hazar,:,- =since it is a treacherous curve. Commissioner Chitiea agreed viith Commissioner Blakesley.stating this was an ideal solution. She suggested br'-nging bred Hill from the east would be a far superior design than erlarg :p the alley and - they treacherous route which would bear the same; mount of traffic behind those homes increasing noise and all the prohYems these people would probably not want. The proposal befor,�'the Commission.. is not satisfactory apiY feels it is poor planning and'woald not recommend that particular so stion. She is not in favor of the cul -de -sac south- without an emergency, access through there. She did not feel that the length of the cul- de -dc frgm, the north, Sierra Vista, is appropriate there without an emeryen%4 entry. The only viable solution is that one of extehUng Red Hill. rr Commissioner Tolstoy stated this was his first suggestion but it may be that that extension would return the problem to the original problem. Commissioner Chitiea stated that if the Planning Commission feels this :.ittun is appropriate -, they could make the recommendation to City Cbxncil and then Cite ;Council could deteraine whether or not that met their intent. Ms. Chitiea stated the Planning U mission sl_?uldn't try to second guess them, but mrke the type of Planning recommendations that are appropriate and let City ";ouncil decide. Ralph Hanson., Deputy City Attorney, clarified this recommendation of the Planning Co�Aission is not an action where the Planning Commission! is acting as a recommending Cody but acting as it final body. The Planning” Commission must either approve or deny the issi,e. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended the Commission take some final action on this issue and the Council will be alerted to the decision and the Council members who may have had some opinion as to this may call it up on appeal on their own. Commissioner Emerick questioned if this solution would encourage people coming up Country Club Drive to make a shortcut on Red Hill Drive now that it connects to Sierra Vista and maybe short cut trips as opposed to going on alternative routes. Then these people would be ,Visited with the very thing they are trying to discourage, additional tri,!fic on that street. Planning Commissf9a Minutes -:.5- Septesaber 23, 1987 >� Commissioner Chitiea stated that when you add mousing to an area, you are going to increase traffic from one direction or anather. Ms, a 'Chitiea believed the best access wjpld be to a straight access. CcAnissi.oner Blakesley agreed with Commtissiorer Chitiea's cocnents and a feels that the best access is stralght_ through f;-.am the south and making it s through street. The City Couw.ii said that it is not approrriate ana this is the next best. Commissioner Emerick stated in that respect, he would favor; those people's rural ideals over public safety considerations and the Commission is speaking for people who are not even in there yet and this i is a concern,- People who are alre_Ay are on Sierra Vista seem to choose to have seclusion and rural ideals as opposed to 'access by public safety; vehicles. He presumed that the people b,,jjirg ft this new tract may also have the same feeling and this is a tradeoff. Commissioner Blakesley stated this is putting some kind of thoroughfare ?n their backyard and this is his objection. He has difficulty seeing this is going to be heavily travel• ,,d route as coming from southbound op Country Club Drive and then going b�-k northbound on Sierra vista, this doesn't seem to be a short cut to anywhere, it's more lice a big U -turn. Commissioner Emerick stated ti:e more you make a straight route and you encourage shorter public safety trips, the mor.you escouM;gge through traffic. If it is a more circuitous route as s,ii; n on the map, you are going to discourage through traffic and people maxing_ci_lortcuts. He believes the Commission needs to delineate the tradeoff.-- Commissioner Chitiea stated the majority' of the opinion is to cut it through and questioned if there was a way, :o work it into the resolutior or achieve this property. Russ Maguire, City Engineer, clarified that Red dill Drive and Monte vista Drive are alleys. He suggested that z coiAlition might be to extend the current alley which goes from Chula Vista new up through the _ angle through to the cul -de -sac basically aloh,1 the lo;: lines of'b'::nd 6 of the alley and that it be a minimum of 26 ;Vent as :required by Cie Fire District. Tte other step to be taken is because the other northerly alley has to Vervain and it has to remart up to Lot 2 and is to require this portion of the alley be 20 feet' in width with a proper designed turnaround in Lot 2. What the Commission would be approving is the map amended to, take the 26 foot wide alley through along 5 and 6 and complete that width down to Chula vista ant' the north -south dead end alley to 20 feet wide with an appropriately design turnaround basically at Lot 2. The Commission could adopt with that amending condition and go forward. Planning Co;aissiorr Minutes -19 September 23, 1987 Commissioner Chitiea stated if the Commission would approve this particular alternative,,,she would like to also add the comment that this'lt is Mill not ideal plannin4. ideally, that street should have gone through�,, The original solution to the problem, from a Planning standpoint, is the most appropriate one.,-, Mr. Tony Mize stated the applicant understands exactly what the City, Engineer has been saying by grsing back to the original 20 Width hammerhead turnaround abutting the accesp to the Lot 10 which, has been historical. This is not a problem. Mr. Richard Avant, Vice President' of AVPark, clarified one of the con,:erns expressed by, many of the individuals who live on that hill is to sU r the ready ac:;ess, ingress, busy traffic on that street where anyone ;.,might think that it is a through thoroughfare. It has been redesigned back to what thq# were directed not to do, what this Commission tried to avoid, What Council has said not to do, and what the vocal majority of the people they having been trying to pacffy said they should not dc, This has, been the eighth meeting on 12 lots and the applicant is willing to do whatever is the best design, ,,ling to do whatever satisfies the community, trying to appease the� Council, the Commission, traffic, engincering, planning, fire and sheriff, znd homeowners. If the design is charged once more, it will be the 15th drawing, the applicant is trying to do it right and that's all they're trying to do. Mr. Tony Mize stated, they would like, it approved with these modifications. Vice Chairman Chitiea closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea stated everyone recognizes the applicant has a particularly difficult piece of property in an unusual location, in the City which is, she hoped, not typical, Commissioner Tolstoy moved to approve with the hammerhead design Commissioner Blakesley seconded the mo';"on. Motion carrie4- by the fol',owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, BLAKEESLEY, CHITIEA NOES- EMERICK ABSENT: MCNIL_ Commissioner Erick clarified his= no vote for the reasons previously stated. --carried Planning Commission Minutes -20- September 23, 19217 INOWAV �An AL L I «" 0 N. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ar, TENTATIVE TRACT 13722 - WILLIAM LYON residential subdivision ot 1230 lots on c acres of l m aein the Medium (4 -14 dwelling units per acre) and Medium-High (1424 dwelling units per.- �;cre) Residential Districts within the Victoria Planned Community, located at the northwest corner of Victoria Park Lane and Milliken Avenue - APN 202 - 211 -13 and 14.. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff would recommend the item be continued until Council action on the r. quested Development District Amendmint for the P'ianned Community. Vice Chairman Chitiea opened the public hearin, won.nissioner Blakesley moved to continue. to October 14, 1987, Commissioner Tolstoy seconded the smoton. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY, CHITIEA, EMERICK NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AK,-XT: COMMISSIONERS: MCHIEL * * * * * * -- carried APPROVAL OF 14INU ES Motion: Moved by Blakesley, seconded by Emerick, carried, to approve the Minutes of July 22, 1987 with the correction on page 16 by Cummissioner Blakesley. All voted in favor, Tolstoy abstained, McNiel was absent. Motion: Moved by Emerick, seconded by Blakesley, carried, to approve the Minutes of August 12, 1987 as submitted. All voted in favor, Tolstoy abstained, Mcl-iel was absent. - Motion : Moved by Emerick, seconded by Blakesley, carried, to approve the Minutes of August 24, 1987 as submitted. All voted in favor, Tolstoy abstained, McKiel was absent. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS 0. GENERAL PLAN UFDATES - SCOPE OF WORK /WORK PROGRAM Bruce Cook, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Tolstoy did not think the Work Program would provide enough weeks to do 'the project realistically. ginning Commission Minutes -21.- September 23, 1987 ,j Brad Buller)' City Planner, stated that with strictly ,administrative updating there will be enough time to do so The Planning Commission approved the proposed`2Work program for administrative updates. P. FEVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR The TWO PARKS TO BE LOWED IN THE VICTORIA VINEYARDS NORTH COMMUNITY Karen McGuire - Emery, Associate Park Planner, presented the staff report. discussion was heard on _adequate parking, shade provided for tot lots, promenades, trees, shrubbery, and ground cover. Tiie Planning 'Commission approved the conceptual design plans and to ".proceed to the October 7,� X87 City Council meeting. Q. COMMISSION; MEETING DATES Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the information stating, due to the holidays, meeting dates would need to be decided for November and December 1987. r Following discussion, the Commission decided to hold their regular meetings as follows: November 10, 1987 4:00 p.m. November 25, 1987 ;''4100 p.m. Decembar_A9 _1987 lion P.M. December 23, -i!97 Cancelled ADJOURNMENT Commissioner F.vrick moved to adjourn, Commissioner Blakesley seconded the motion. Aotion unanimously carried. 11 :01 P.M. - Planning Commission Adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Deputy Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - -« September 23, 19$7 r rt`�li !i �1\ JI 11 DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 28, 1987 Ghairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner ureg wage, Assiszanz rianner 1977 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT 87 -285 - CISNEROS - A request to modify tfle original Reso u on W approval to a11ow instruction; of childbirth classes within a single, family residence to occur on Saturdays APN: 1077- 151 -75. I. BACKGROUNEk: At its August 12, 1987 meeting, the Commission upheld i 'e appi%e nt's appeal to permit childbirth classes within a single family residence. The Commission subsejuenVy adopted a Resolution of approval ,at its meeting on August 26, 1987, which included conditions toy limit class size and limit the hours of instruction. The applicant; is requesting a modification to the hours -W instruction to 911ow instruction to occur on Saturdays, 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The original approval allowed instruction between 5:00 p,m. and 10:00 r_!a. for A - maximum of two nights tdcring the week) . II. ANALYSIS: In considering the original request, the impact of increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic resulting from the classes wet-e primary concerns voiced by the Commission (see attached minutes from August 12, 1987 Planning Commission meeting). By establishing conditions to limit class sizes, hours of instruction, and the number of meetings per week, these concerns were effectively addressed. oince the applicant is not requesting an increase in the number of mt:stings permitted per week, no significant increaes in pedestrian or vehicular activity are anticipated as a result of the change. III. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission approve the requested c ange through adoption of the Resolution attached hereto. Qqc lI tali d, r cner BB:GG:vc J Attachments: Minutes from August 12, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Original Resolution of Approval Resolution Modifying Conditions of Approval for Home Occupation Permit 87 -255 ITEM A 4+ i • wv i 1977 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT 87 -285 - CISNEROS - A request to modify tfle original Reso u on W approval to a11ow instruction; of childbirth classes within a single, family residence to occur on Saturdays APN: 1077- 151 -75. I. BACKGROUNEk: At its August 12, 1987 meeting, the Commission upheld i 'e appi%e nt's appeal to permit childbirth classes within a single family residence. The Commission subsejuenVy adopted a Resolution of approval ,at its meeting on August 26, 1987, which included conditions toy limit class size and limit the hours of instruction. The applicant; is requesting a modification to the hours -W instruction to 911ow instruction to occur on Saturdays, 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. The original approval allowed instruction between 5:00 p,m. and 10:00 r_!a. for A - maximum of two nights tdcring the week) . II. ANALYSIS: In considering the original request, the impact of increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic resulting from the classes wet-e primary concerns voiced by the Commission (see attached minutes from August 12, 1987 Planning Commission meeting). By establishing conditions to limit class sizes, hours of instruction, and the number of meetings per week, these concerns were effectively addressed. oince the applicant is not requesting an increase in the number of mt:stings permitted per week, no significant increaes in pedestrian or vehicular activity are anticipated as a result of the change. III. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission approve the requested c ange through adoption of the Resolution attached hereto. Qqc lI tali d, r cner BB:GG:vc J Attachments: Minutes from August 12, 1987 Planning Commission Meeting Original Resolution of Approval Resolution Modifying Conditions of Approval for Home Occupation Permit 87 -255 ITEM A ~ o o C. ENO N—NMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10884 - SYCAMORE nort t corner of Archibald Avenue ind Base LIP Road - APN 202­,�--____ Joe Stofa, Ass 'irate Civil Engineer, presented the staff rely--ilt. Mr. Bart Striker:�,,"representing Sycamore Investments !I, concurs'wIt-h-the staff report. Cha.irman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Blakesley moved to approve the resolution as written, Commissioner Chitiea seconaed the motion. Notion was cat,ried by the following vote: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT,, COMMISSIONERS: TOLSOY D. HOME OCCUPAT ION PERMIT 87-255 - CISNEROS - Appeal of staff's Drive. (continued from July 8, 1987) � Greg Gaye, Assistant planner, presented the staff report, � Chairman WNW opened the public hearing. � further Ns. Wr,.�anne E Cisneros ppellant, stated jthis application is for individualized Lamaze chi'ldlairth classes. There would only -be 10-12 adult student couples at one time since it is conducive to Ms. Cisneros —, Commissioner of 1976 - 1986 sought private home classes. Out of the 57 private instructors in Upland, 24 private instructors in Rancho Cucamonga,.Ms. Cisneros is the only one wto has asked for a Business Permit/Home Occupation Permit. S.)ie stated she wanted to be honest coming for a permit. She also indicated that she would limit the number of couples in reconsideratior� of the Commission. —~~~ y"�*°^v»�� p� hours nr npor�tion, Planning Commission Minutes ^ -3- ,. � Augurt 12, 1987 � f Ms. Cisneros responded 5 :00. - 7:00 p.m. or 7:30 - 9:30 10 :00 -, 12:03 or 9 :00 — ''11:00 Saturday mornings dependingevenings on gwork schedules. She indicated the cost of 6 week course is $75 and she is trying vary hard to keep the 6 4.yses small. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ermerick tated his only concern was with the number of cars that would be coming to the neighborhood. He would like to protect the neighborhood from traffic impacts. CL4; rman McNiel opened the public hearing. Ms. Cisneros responded to cocaissioner Emerick °s comments reqarding parking stating that six spac,tis_ are available on their property,ind she also has a letter ;signed by biighbors stating consent that the-parking would not be a pro64p m. Commissioner Emerick questioned whether the Comiaissipn was tstablishing a precidence here. He felt there would be traffic impacts upon the neighborhood. Chairman Mckiel closed the public hearing. Commmissioner Chitiea also indicated her concern about the traffic impact \' on chis neighborhood since it is a cul -de -sac. It would seem a,church facility might be more appropriate. She stated she was not comfortable with the number of people impacting the neighborhood. Commissioner Biakesley stated he applaudes Ms. Cisneros approach since som►P Lamaze classes have been is industrial areas, church basements, nedi'k'�ai office buildings, -etc.. and felt this approach would be much more comfortable and relaxing. He did not feel there was a problem with the number of couples nor the impact on the comm4tiity. He supports the Home Occupation Use and is concerned with setting a precidence. Brad Buller, City Planner, discu£ied the option of trial period limiting the number of people, mitigating it for a certain length of time, and conditioning it so it 'does not set a precedence. Neighborhood concerns could be grounds for avocation of the permit. Commissioner Chitiea suggested conditioning it setting restrictions if there were neighborhood corplaints or problems. The Commission could set some guideLnes and proceed with the permit. Oaf) Coleman,, Senior Manner, stated the size of the room would limit the number of couples itself. Brad Buller, City Planner, recommended the staff work with the applicant `given the guidelines set by the Commission, develop some conditions, and bring it back as resolution recomamending approval as a Consent Calendar Planning Cargmission Minutes \ -4- August 12, 1907 item. Staff would work out the details of two nights a waek and the limit of eight couples. The resolution would be more explicit for the 00 hour, of operation, etc,. Comulysioner Chitiea moved to direct staff to develop a resolution for approval on the Home Occupation Permit = Cisneros. Commissioner Blakesley ieconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKE;.EY, MCNIEL NOES: EMERICK ABSENT: TOLSTOY Commissioner Emerick clarified his no vote for the reac��is stated in the t discussion. * * * * * * -- carried E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -27 - SLOBODA request a �aw a a Er /pas rah sop within an ex s ing industrial complex located at the souiwwest corner of Arrow Route and Vineyard Avenue in the General Industrial District (Subarea 1) of he Industrial Area Specific Plan - AFl 207 - 251 -49. Grig Gage, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Chai Haan McNiel opened the public hearing, Ms. Sa °in Sloboda, 1350 Balboa Avenue, Ontario, concurred with the staff report. Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Chitiea moved, to approve the resolution, Commissioner E:7merick seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE " ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY * * * * ** -- carried F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITION1% USE PERMIT 87 -28 - MESSENGER - e reques or a Haster CUP to allow Business Support erv� ices, Convenience Sales and Services, and Food and Beverage Sales in Buildings 1, 2 and 3 of an approved industrial business park, in the General Industrial District, Subarea 2, located in the south side of Arrow, at Bear Gulch Place - APN 209- 012 -19. Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 12, 1987 or If mom. RESOLUTION NO. 87 -146 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO C'1CAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION 1 APPROVING HOME OCCUPATION PE MIT NO. 87 -255 FOR CHILDBIRTH 10736E5JNDANCENDRIVE IN THE MIUMSDENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT - APR 1077 - 151-75, filed by wraayanne on erostforarev review the7aiiM- dede=ribed project; ect� and WHEREAS, on the`1 2th day of August, 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission help 1, meeting to consider the above- describsd project. follows; NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning COMM4sion resolved as SECTION 1: That the following can be met: I. That the proposed a *i is in accord with the obitctives of the 1 40lopment Code and the purposes of 'the district ,ch the site is located r-d 2. That the propos,� use, together with the conditions applicable ther �), will not be detrimental to the public health, i�fety, or, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vir,inity; and 3. That the proposed project is in compliance with each .. of the applicable provisions of the Development Coy -; and 4. That the proposed project is consistent with the- W motives of the General plan. SECTION 2: That this project will not create adverse impacts on the envim"51-ina Is categorically exempt in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3• 'fiat Horse Occupation Permit No. 87 -ZSS is approved subject to WO-f0-110ving conditions; I. Maximum class size shall not exceed 16 persona at any time, exclusive of instructor and resident family webers. 2. The use shall be periodically reviewed by the City. Tf it is determined that the use is disruptive to the surrounding residences, the permit shall bt brought before the Planning Commission for review and passible revocation. _ g, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ' HOP 87 -255 - CISNEROS August 26, 1987 jf ~ s Page 2 r 3. ` This approval shall not waive c6mp'r'iaAce with the prM signs of the Development Code or Terra Vista Cowunity Plan, including applicable Horse Occupation Criteria. ° d. Instrq�tion at the residence shall not con ,ct prior to 5:00 p.m, on weekdays, and shall noti) continue-past 10:00 p.m., and shall not exceed two (2) nights per week, t: APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF Ak�UST, 1987. P° PLANNING COWISSION OF THE CITY OF AANCW, Ct BY: a. rry, a reran ATT„\T: —"""'. 64 e , crate"-" ��. I, Brad Buller, Deputy` Secretary tr,tkra Planning oaaissiQn of g the Rancho Cucamonga, do her.,aby certify .hat the foregoing Resolution was City of dull and regularly introd!, ;,ed, passed, and acopted �W the Flannjng Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held \ on tke 26th day of August, 1987, by the foliowinr vote -tc -Kit: AYES: COKUSSIONERS: CHTTIEA, BLAKESLEY, MCNIEL NOES: r9MMISSIONERS: EMERICK ` ABSENT: CMNISSIO.NERS: TOLSTOY I4 {E 1 l ;!yGy RESOLUTION N0, 87 -24uA ; A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING ttMMISSION MODIFYING RESOLUTION NO. 87 -146 TO ALLOY! CHILDBIRTH CLASSES 1WT17HIN A SINGLF: FAMILY RESIDENCE) LOCATED AT 107U SUMOACE DRIVE, ONE. � UPDAYS BETWEEN 20:00 A.M. AND 2 :00 P.M. AN 207V451 -75 WHEREAS, on the 4tF_ - -stay of May, 2987, a complete application w v,, ; filed by Wrayanne Cisneros for review of the above -desci fted projeci; and WHEREAS, on the 26th dal-' ,of August, 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission conditionally a ,.loved the above - described project; and WHEREAS, ore the 28th day of October, 1987, the Rancho Cucaronga Planning Commission held a a,:eting to consider the above - described modification. fotlows: NOW. THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning COMission resol ied as SECT ION 2: That the -r:,l lowing can be met: 1. That the proposed use is in accord with thr, Objectives of the DeveloWnt Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and 2. That the proposed fuse,, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or= improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed project is`in compliance with each of the applicablz provistais of the Development Code; and. 4. That the proposed project is co1�1z¢ent with f, . objectives of the General Man. ad 2ag this lj will not create ns categorically exempt in accordance the California Environmental Quality Act. SECTION 3; That condition number four (4), as set forth.wi',hin Resoi ution 1$7:I45.7 S hereby amended, to read asp fol rows: 4.' Instruction at the residence shalt not com -_pce prior ;I,v 5 :00 p.m, on weekdays, nor prwiov- to 10 :0u a.m. i ''.,Saturdays. Instructio" shall not continue Past' ;,00 p.m. on any night, and shall not oc(:ar -at the - residence more than twice in any one week 1,,meven day period). �� I PIAIiNiN6 GOIWt�S3.Ii R ou No" HOP W -255 kWS , . August 26, 1467` Page 2 APPROVED ANU ADOPTED THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987 PLMNIN6 COWISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCR431 A BY: Larry T. McHiel, n ATTEST: - Brad Wier, ee, pu secretary I. Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Comissic Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoli regularly introduced, plkssed, and adopted by the Planning City of Rancho Cucamonga„ at a regular sleeting of they Plannii on the 28th daffy of October, 1987, by the following vote- to -wir: AYES: CORUSSIONEPS: ' NOES: COM'gISSIONERS: A3` .1M COi1MISSIONERS: 11 J 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT � K x r DATE: Octob.r 28,1983 p TO: C,:airman and Memoers of the Planning Commission U3 t9:? FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: :reg Gage, Assistant Planner SUBJECT TIME EXTENSION FOR ENVIRONKNTAL ASSESSMENT AND COQOITIONAL USE PERMIT 85- U - NO reque,, to cans iFlic an square of ot wa--re-fro—uW'-6U-fTding addition to an existing home improvement center and the development of a Master Plan on 2 &'res of 11)A in the Offices Professional district located at 3110 Archibald Avenue, northwest vorner of Base :Line Road and Lomita Court - APN: 20I.- 151 -33. 1. BACKGROUND: The Planning Comm -ssion ap;�.ciied the above referenced applicatlon at its meetiny.on November 13, 19 t,The applicant has since submitted working drartings for plan check, and is diligently pursuing completion of the '�rocess in anticipation of obtaining a building peliit. The time extension being requested, and now before the Commission, would provide the applicant an adequate amount of time to complete the plan,check'Iorocess. 12. ANALYSIS: The proposed expansion „-of the V -Z non- conforming use and s ruc ure V:-13uld comply with the Wllmum comp rciat development standards set forth by the Developmiiit Code. The applicable provisions pertaining to setbacks, parking, lan(Lrcaping, etc. at-;a essv%ntiAly the qame as those Which were in effect at the time the prpj;� - was approved. The revisnd plans which were submitted for plan chccx ' incor1wrated various design c::anges (parapet extension, wood tre"-f ^, lands apiq, etc.) which served to address seyeral concerns voiced by "the Cc fission relative to the building elevations. These changes remain as a sicnificant upgrade to the aesth €tic character of the projeei, IrI. RECOMMENDATIO'I: Staff recommmends that tf;? Planning Commission approve a one year mx extension for Conditional Us Permit 85 '20 through adoption of the attar�ed Resolution. Re ■.ctfuliyysu tted, B i City lanner BB :GG:vc . Attachments: L+.tter fry Applicant Planning Canni ss l-i Staff Report Dated November 13, 1985 Resolution Approving Time Extension ITEM 8 S. M. H YT LUMBER O C } SiNC@ 192b 1.UN,RE12 YARD: HOW CF -WER: W ` 321 East Holt 81vd, 7110 Archibald Ave. P.O. Box 589 l > ancho CuoamooW CA 91701 Qntario, CAtifGtuia 91761 �_: k (714; 986 772I 014) 989 -8554 O k f�- Ll - J 1 I CITY AF RANCMO CuCAMONCA PLANNING t7.V €G1GN OGc Z4 1987 �igt�t�t�t�1�D�1�95►�!!.' w CITY, RANIr,'HU C,iiCAbf) A - G� STAFF ItEPOI T-- DATE: November'13, 1985 \ TO: Chairmai and Members of the Panning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planrar 1 BY: Nancy Pang, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMeNTAL ASrcSSMENT AND CONDiTIONA% USE PER; %'�;T`85 -20 - Y L l `R - A request th ' c-onstruct an 8,000 sg4are €bot warenouse tiui'di -+C addition to an existing home improvement I center and th(- rtel�elopment of a Master -r Plan; ocy 2 acres of lar:i in the Office,_ Professional 0istrict., ocated at MO Archibald ,Avente, northwewt corner of Use Line Road and Lomita Co ,.r.�t APN 202 - 151 -33. I. BACKGROW: the Planning Commission, .i'iS regular matting of e�tEmS5r III, 1985, held a p0lic head 4nd contiaued this item to this meeting to allow time for + licant in revising the cle.ration to address th? concerns v AIannind, Commission. The 6WAizsion felt that tNe proposed'"%— Ations did not project the image off' retail facilit_y and the proposed upgrading of the existidy ?some improvement center way inadequate. The purpose of this report is for the Plaq�iirn� romeission tG review sAd deteriviine if the revised elevations have adequately addressed the Commission's concerns; and, to revi". anw consider the approval of thjj Condit= -na1 `13 Penal t. II. ANALNSIS: ins: apdz ,s,nt has revised the elevation to address -khe concerns 4f the Tit. ing C*Uission as 2ollows: 1, Provide extRndeo parapet to the sn_'th, east and -eear elev *tlon, ihich will swreen the existing roof mounsed ef,,Wpzents.« 2, grMvide wood trellis along the cast elevatio?I and the st,utr elev &'tion to the point wh,Ire the rollup doors ary located. _. isle a floor plan showing that the rollup coor is ` f -)r efficient fio4 of loading and unloading Y PLAN.4INrx -W issi^ - STAFF REPORT, CUP 85 -20 - Hoyt fiber November .13, 1985: Page 2, '` 1 ,II ti 4. - Landscape planter along the east elevation has been expanded from 5 feet to 10 feet in otter to..provide a better pedestrian connection. 5. The color scheme for the entire project has been changed to amore earthto►le color, such as gray. =- The Design Reyi± vt ' Commiti0i rewtewed the (revised ele-;ationn and recomerded approval with th.;fcllowing conditions: 1. Increase the site the wing,vallfor the°roll -up doors located a +a;`the sot:th. and west elevation as shown in Exhibit MCI ".' 2. Prov'Je a strip of stucco over above the roll -up door roof, to the size of the one,proposW to the parapet rs shorn in E, „;632; "Cl ". 3. Provide protective gua. >d s ch as steel poles at the sides ;of the two roI7! -up doors as shown in Exhibit MCI M. 4. The trellis work shali`;;d W of heavy ;food beAs, such as a ininimum of 5" x E” post. III. RECD MEFDATION: Staff `recommezlas that the Planning ,Zommission conWu6 pullic hearing and consider all material and imput regarding this project. If the Commission m ,*ices the determiratinn that the proposed revision to the elevation has addressed the Commission's concerns, approval of CUP 85 -20 through the adoption cf the attached revised Resolution and Conditrens of Approval condition and the issuance a Negative Declaration vould be -3n order. Res ect�'ully subrgjtta.s, Brad Buller City Planner FB:NF:ns Attaehftais: Exhibit "A" - Revised"Site Plan Exhibit "8" Revised Landscape PYan Exhibit "C" - Revised Elevations Exhibit "D" -- Plate Entry & Floor Plan. September 11, 1985 Planning Commission Staff Repgrt Revif,ed Resolution of Approval with conditions =l 6 y *" W, wow-" 46 crry REM: RANU-HO CUCA�4 T I rrLE. SCALE- , ry 11111fl.1101 Oil" o LAN:; 7` CITY CF RA-.N,UiD CLICAMa,\UA PLAMING EXVISM Q4 tip ��`��� _ �• � - � t ;Sr lu alp - 44 A ri s r RESOLUTION NO. �! s A RESOLUTION OF 7HE RANCHO CUCAMONGA 9LANNI.1% EOMMIS3I0N, i APPROVING THE TIME EXTENSION FOR COKE - 1rICNAL USE PERMIT 85 -20 APN 202 - 151 -33. WHEREAS, a request has been filed for a time extension for the above- described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.100. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the above - described Conditional Use Permit. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the f011owingfindings; A. That prevailiv economic conditions ha4e caused a distressed mai*t t climate for development of the project. B. That current economic, marketing, and inventory conditions make it unreasonable is develop the project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval � regarding expirations would not be consistent with the intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will rot be detrimental to the public health, sefety, or welfara, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamnga Planning Commission hereby grants a time exten5 on or: Project A plicant P:xpir°acior, Condit`rehai Use Permit 05 -26 Hoyt Lumber November 13, 1988 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987. PLANNIMG_ C,OHNISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCO CUCA*3KGA BY: .arrf T, e , CoUrman A ATTEST, Brad u tea,' Nepffy- Socretary PLANNIM COWISMOIJ RESWW 16� r CUP 85 -20 • MOYT L ER , October 28, 198? page 2 fi Ix Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Plaming Comission of the City of Rancho &ucamonga,,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution-ms. duly and reyulzey introu ed, gassed., and tdopted by the Planning Csian of the City of Rae-,ho Caomonga, at a regulaj-� meetidg'of the Plmnning Comission held on the 28th day of October, 19811 by the following vote -to -grit: ., AYES. COMISSImERS. \� YOU COWISSIONERS: j ASSERT: COMISSIdNNRSt 11 z � e E DATE: TO: FROM. BY: SjBJ FCT: — CITY OF PMTCVO CUCAMONGA STAFF KEP®RT a October 28, 1987 t Chairman and Members of the Plonn'ng Commission Brad Buller, City Planner G?-eg Gage, Assistant Planner EVVIRONNENTAL ASSESSMENT FOk DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 87 -40 - e eve opment of an 11,744 scpaare foot industrial u ding on a 1.54 acrd parca7 within the General Industrial District (Subarea 5) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on Sharon Circle - APR: 209 - 261 -23. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actioo')Requested: '''Issuance of a Negative Declaration. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - vacani; Genera l Indus ial (Subarea 5) South - Vacant, General Industrial (Subarea 5) East - Improved Deer Creek Flood Contra? Channel, General Industrial (Subarea 6) .lest Vacant, Ceneral Industrial ( Subarea 5) C. Gereral, plan Designations: rojec site - enera n ustrial North - General Industrial South General Industrial East - Flood Control West General Industrial D. Site Characteristics: The site is located % the eastern end of Sharon rc e, cul -de -sac street. The site is relatively flat, Slopirg southerly at approximately 1 %. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Re u� ieed Provided Multi- tenant 11,744 1 /500 24!, r= 27 ITEM C rx PLANNING COMW WSION SUFF RePORT OR 87 -40 - CaslBM Incorporated October 28, 1987 Papa 2 II. ANALYSIS: A. Genet-' The' ��r';�ant ii requesting environmental assessment owe const>!Ud,*tvn of 1 industrial building totalinq 11,744 square feet. Upaq issuance of a Negative.Declaration, the City 1, Planner will grant final approval of 'he project based on conditions recowwndud, >by the Design and Technical Review Committees. B. Design Revieie Ckmaittee: On October 8, 1987 the Co)umittee ates e't—y; - W eR1 routi1} reviewed the project and rec!.mmended approval 4" ;Ibjiect to the following conditions: 1 1., Textured pavement; across the drive entry aisle should be provided'consistent with the adjacent project to the south j and west. 2. A pedestrian connection from the office entry area to the employee plaza should be provided." 3. The two handicapped parking spaces should be of the sama textured pavement Gs the office entry area. 4. The landscape area at the northwest corner of the b =wilding should be expanded to screen the roll -up dyer at th ' westerly side. 5. Additional pedestrian ammenities and iardscap� should ue provided to.` the lunch /plaza area subject to C ,ty Plannev approval. 6. AdOitional' reveals should be provided at all building corners. C. Technical Review Crwiaittee• The Technical Review Committee reviewed .,r pro ec P a sleeting in October 6, 1987, and determin -i that with recommended cono "tions of approval the project is consistent with applicable City Standards and Ordinances. D. Enviransrental A3sessmeat- Ulm review of Part I of the Initial u v and, upon comp le n`'o Part II of the Environmental Checklis , staff has found,no significant environmental impacts related to the development of this project. Pt AFiwt CoB, =- off STAFF REP1 DR 8740 - Catlar Inporporat/ October'28, 1987 'v > Page 3 G III. FACTS Fl1R FIWGINGS: This project is consistent with tht Industrial per. c" a�1' a ancT the Sererai Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties, or cause significant enviro", ntal impact. In addition, the proposed sifia. plan and building design together with reccmeadeed conditions, will comply with the industrial Specific Plan and W applicable Cit.,! Standards* IY. RECOWEMATION: Staff recommends approval and issuance ofi, eiigati",e Decla ration for Development Re:Aiew 87-40 Res tfully bmitckdi, i Bra 11e Ci,ty Planner I/ l BB :SG:vc 1 Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit NV - Building Elevations I 13 Notmi CITY (F rmm. 40 C -q NORTH CITY CE Mel: D1 -02 0 10-28-87 PC`s.Agenda 2 j d; •ci `ij r' •:I1 • � Y / t i 6 � t +a t t 1 t ,.• � �I j a s t i r (e7 1 s s ~� ii �•� T T •Y� • .1F1•Iltr• 1 rl � � .\ j •'V6 ♦• ;•" • M1• 1l. tidi' AL •r. 1 i ' • t , fi�Al/Y '��Af1�Y' CITY CF rtm: Ft _ 87 -- 4 Q RANCTIO, TrrLE.- bou \hG �_Lcvea'c� tom_ n.tllYlr DWEM EXHIW: ;. ►Q'C's C —Zo DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT .o r- �L 9 a r a � o z U > 1977 October 28, 1987 Chairman and Members of the rianf4'1g Commission Brad Buller, City planner �:ott Murphy, Associate Planner TRACT 13058 DESIGN REVIEW - PULTE HOMES - Design review of Building elevationii and plot p ans for a previously approved tract map consisting of 200 single family lots on. 29.18 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (4 -' 14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of` Fairmont Way, south of Highland Avenue - APH 202- 211 -13 and 31 -. I. PkW ECT AND SITE CESCRIPTI0R: A. Action Re ueq 4ted: Approval of building elevations and plot plans. 0. ProjetL�,Density 7.08 dwelling units per acre. C. 5urroun.:n Land Use and Zoni__n�____ or - ng a familynes en al under construction; Low - Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acrel. South - Groves Park ¢hd vacant; school and park site, Lo:v- Mediurm Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). East - Vacant; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and Medium -High Residential (14 -24 dwelling 4rits per acre). West - Vacant; Deer Creek Flood Control Channel, Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre;, and Low - Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). D. General Plan Designations: rojec site - LOW- ium`Residertial (4 -8 dwelling units per acre). North - Low-Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre). South - Law- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). East - Lov- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and proposed elementary school. West -- ;:Flood Control, Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4- 8:dwelling units per acre). ITEM D Z _X f PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT TT 13058 OR - PULTE NOME'S' October 28, 1987 Page 2 ' II. ANALYSIS: 4 __ E A. Background: On May 28, 1985, the Planning Commission approved . i en a Tv-Tract 13058 for the development � of 200 single family lots } and two common lots within The Groves Village. Subsequently, The William Lyon Company submitued a. design - review for the tract which was reviewed and approved by the Planning CoRmission on August 12, 1987. }' B. General: The applicant is proposing a new zero lot line product consisting of one- single story unit and three two -story !: units. The units range in size from 1,171 square feet to 1,75¢ r square feet in area. Each Poor plan has three (3) elevations. ` The applicant is also proposing a series of lot line adjustments with the design review submittal. The lot line adjustments are necessary to accommodate the unit type being proposed by the applicant. Staff has reviewed the adjusted lot lines and feels Est the request is in compliance with kne original approvals the tract, the Groves Area Development Plan, and the Vieto Community Plan. C. Desiggn__ Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Emerick Tors oy,y,-Co eman rev awed the proposal on October 8, 1987 and recommended app!,,pv&# subject to the following conditions: 1. Detailing shall be provided around all windows. - 2. A 15 -foot usable rear yard shall be provided for all units. The 15 feet shill be measured from the ' building.to the top /toe of slope. 3.. On Lots 61, �), 72, 108, log, 178 and 179 the + building setbacks are less than 10 feet from the public open space areas. Therefore, intensified landscaping should be provided within the trail to. provide a buffer between the dwelling units ani the open space areas. (This has been provided on the trail landscaping plans prepared by The William Lyon Company.) 4. Corner side yard and perimeter fencing should be a decorative block consistent with the theme found within The Victoria Groves Village. r Z _X i,- PLANNING O ISSIVtI STAFF REPORT u IT 13058 69 - PULITE WKS October 20, 1987 Page: 11 � II. RECMENDATION: Staff recommends that the planning Commission approve Trio Z esign review of Tract 13058 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. As� tttd BB :SM:ko s Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map � Exhibit = -)V - Site Alan Exhibit "C" Building Elevations Exhibit "D" - Trail Setbacks Resolution of Approval wfth Conditions rj I m I a 1 ili -,Lj � 1 El , , 1 s � _ t 11e - S i 4 �na CITY CF ITEaNV 7X / 4e- RANCHO C IMCNGX TITLE: PLANNING DIVISM EXHIBIT : SCALE: � l D-4 16 El fi ox, Mil( SUMMARY MK Na M) KT CITY Cf ITEM- /Z RANCHO CUC-k.Njo ,NGA TITLE: PL.kNNI.NG D(VISM EXHIMT- 'D-5 m ILI 71 CITY CV RANCHO CUC,-�,NjoNGA PLANNINc Dwsm TITLE: /X� EXHIBIT--S-0 SCALL; I 0 El A B C RAW wavx 1RIm CITE' OF ITEM: I A:� CM CUCeVNIO ' A TITLE = PLANNING D(VISM �EXHIBIT G' -/ SCALE-. F: Y a ac CITY OF r j� � ITBI. TITLE: ,`�7CrSES PLA.ti'' ING DIN'ISID�; EXt!lBIT / � SCALE: iX Q' s 0 61 it CITY OF ITENI: 4e RA: UHO CUC-` ,NJGN, , GA Trri.E- PLANNING D(VISM EXHIBIT- ScA[!i- NITS cu �l CITY OF ITEM: ZE- e�?� 4c RANCHO CUC--�,NJONG PLANNING DIN'SM EXHIBIT---e-z—/ SC ALL: cl Q 0 rc a U A e n. f7 } jlui MAN 71DNa I CITE' OF RANCHO CUC \joa i rEm- PLAtitit NG DIVISION TITLE �fr EXHIBIT: e--`" CITY OF ITEM: RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrrLE., PLANNING DIVE)M c= EXHIBIT e—zg SCALE: .V- Li r 11 C 1K.AR �wra�s lip RAtiCHC JCLC. ,jo TMI: ;- PLAtitiI.VG DIZ I EXHIBIT.-g',' 7 -13 ti CITY OF ITENI- RANCHO CUCA�.%,ION , PLANNING DJ�JSK)N, EXHIBIT.- ---Sf-ne- SCALE. - s son "" w RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TPAGT NO. 13056 FOR THE DE',)ELOPMIENT OF 200 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 29.16 ACRES OF LAND IM THE MEDIUM. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) WIHIN THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMIMIUNITY, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FAIRM9ONT WAY, SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE - APN 202- 681 -36 THROUGH 64, 202 -91142 THROUGH 43,. 202- 912 -01 THROUGH 64, AND 2202- 922 -61 THROUGH 65 A. Recitals. (1) "-dlte Homes has filed an application for the Des'gn Review of Tr^ct No. 131;tS as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subjer: ` -iqn Review request is referred to as "the application ". fii) On October 28, 1967, the Planning Commission of the City of R dcho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby, found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of ,the City of Rancho Curamonga as follows; 1 This Commis ?on hereby specifically finds that all; <►f the facts i set forth n the Recitals, mart A, of this Resolution are true an6- 'correct. r 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to thi__Commission during the above - referenced meeting on October 28, 190, including written and oral stafr reports, this Commsission hereby specifically finds as follows: a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b) That the proposed design is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c) That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of th6 Victoria Community Plan end Development Code; and d) That the proposed design, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to Properties or improvements in the vicinity. v; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION TA 13058 DR - PULIE HOMES October 28, 1987 Page 2 AML Gi fo 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in para,,1raph 1 and 2 above, this Ccmission hereby approves the application subject �,q each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard CondtIons attached hereto Poid incorporated herein by this reference,--," 1) Window detailing in the form of stucco plant-ons shall be provided around all windows. The revfAed,- plans shall be reviewed and approved by the flity;,J Planner prior'tc the issuance of building'permi#. 2) A 15-foot usable rear yard area shall be provided for all units. The 15 feet is meeisured from the building to the top/toe of the slope. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuanc of building permits. 3) Decorative block wall, as opposed to wrought iron fencing, shall be required at the: rear of Lots 1 through 6. The wall detail shall be shown on the final landscape plan which is subject to review and approval by the City Planner prior to the issuance of'building permits. 4) The landscaping within the trail adjacent to Lots 61, 71, 72, 108, 109. 178 and 179 shall be intensified to soften and buffer the dwellings due to their close proximity to tF,e public open space. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Citr,,Planner prior ,t the issuance of building pemltsl 5) Front yard landscaping is required between courtyard walls and the street and shall include, at a miniw.m, one 15-gallon size tree, one 5-gallon size tree, seeded groundcover, shrubs, and a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. The requirement shall be in addition to required street trees. The final landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) Perimeter fencing shall be required and be constructed with decorative block consistent with the theme for the Groves Village. The dr-'- Jn and location of the wall shall be shown on ifie final landscape plan, which is subject to review and t,!,roval by Aty Planner prior to the issuance, building Permits. PIANN11tt6 CQiISS1 ►ti+SOt.UTION TR 13M DR - POLTFr YOMES Octobor 28, 198i' Page 3 / r ?) r-ner side yard fencing shall be required and be ^ c*-- firucted with decorative block consistent with ho` rchitectural theme of the development. The des", n and location of the watt sha11 be shown on the final landscape plan which is subject to review and approval by the City Planner prior to the Waance of building permits. 8) An amended tract map shall be approved and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9) All applicable conditions of Tract 13058 approval, e' as contained ifr Resolution 86-67, shall apply. 4. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the 4' adoptign of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOJER,, 1987, PLANHINf COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA E i BY: i Larry T. RcR ,e ' Chairman i ATTEST: Brad But er, epu y ecre ary I, Brad Duller, Deputy Secret., ry of the Planning. Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City i.f Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning roammisslon held on the 28th day of October, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit:- �I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMl4I;IOkcttS: E LI CD x V a tl�N� NY�+w_UL LJILO�.Y.SSmvyy •'.�J-5-0 Olga ..y 4.W Aw�.� N �p I oil $agY•- IV.9 �g 7Z km y�US1YYi ngOO GGG du Ix VO N��C g1 OM al V H O G•4�a�yy u>p .Y ` MLryy9 ems. ���Py Y.�w osio+v , `\1[•�CS.i ��i �CYa.3 V�Y OiL.�A •j°d Ca°re e$ •io9gY sV OA r�yOd�^V .°„ice •iij�4}.�pOg w.Y` �q=� a Y `M cif: ■y. M s� NIP! C�� RV w9 i t Y� IN Kinj Sr H yaoEv`�� Z s Nil ti.Y �N u Rip NHYg xapa' v i t's se'2 N � Y i�as E 4 =a e --Z x • Y w n lit ° ■ ■■ NGGY Ca i i1° M a ?ter 6 O y s 27 A tiS• t M e' i t 7 D-a Mr�Y e O Y v.. 4 Yi O o Y a OO eO o �iSM �1Yy M .Crgq6 ���M N 1 v ii �w1� lw s" �c°iyrC NfY..Ns�iY�� gvh uN�N .S w+ 3ba � V p 4r Fly YY $c1 1451 D��� , rce N O iyy Ord .w� m LS N O D E '.L N L COCL C�"aw twlL""V yw CO$ L.w w:,i al Tam C fC� N.^. yry�N � ?'eec0 oG wfYw 'U" y!y�:�{. -aay4 - Ip/�t�Y NY�Y����{S{ Yys4 i7pNQ�G <■Y6� iYC C.0 =^ N�MNLiii�MMi.l � ti ti tj v � Y wrau 3ai L °IC +w 3 ° Yy r y V � Z t N � c �^ � q C V N S u gyilipg v� SV'c np b YO it Vh e «� va3ii � „ M rz!/v a -j N sY ` L G L -759 } V ^ O O V M gaTtxQ"' re fig �W V Yl ap Ox via nO4 K g W`O' . =k'52 ". V 3 iw X 14 ..i5 Y_ w Y N NY-I :z ! �Y�p-i ti !go- y6. Sp Ell w�Qe} C� CNCk a C H N■ O L H Y �■ Y MU. �geyVIs �'�L ��vpp �rLsSsc eWCV 64n KYwO i ■�CY' O C��.G g• G N V .21 La� �Yp p� Y N Y� y M tY°VC pN ° i Y `t C N a pV, r Lp K LLY L L) A �N�ypcC >o'Y° �wT � YxbO C Ly LY^ {� C' L -1 2 YOM TZ vC$ ,� �r•M �TL Y �•q yy��Yp�YVyyypV r!p Y�YM Nr� y.C� itC 32 2.3 }LT we C ST Y z^ $ ON Y9 $C w—N s M Tj Cp u� MYI tl ss W 3 C t� 83 w6 M gaTtxQ"' re fig �W V Yl ap Ox via nO4 K g W`O' . =k'52 ". V 3 iw X 14 ..i5 Y_ w Y N NY-I :z ! �Y�p-i ti !go- y6. Sp Ell w�Qe} C� CNCk a C H N■ O L H Y �■ Y MU. �geyVIs �'�L ��vpp �rLsSsc eWCV 64n KYwO i ■�CY' O C��.G g• G N V .21 La� �Yp p� Y N Y� y M tY°VC pN ° i Y `t C N a pV, r Lp K LLY L L) A �N�ypcC >o'Y° �wT � YxbO Ll 11 11 =Zia -1 0--g elf— ktz� 23.2 '2 SIZ a TV z Mfg -v Ova 3 -..x ff- 26 15 1 g 27 c A . — v _40 041 a. Z; Alt -59V -B" aL —IN-,2z V4 9z F 2 9.-.. a 1.,� ta- -O,z Xv P5 a !gust If if* .,..get Ile Ilk A; E, S. so e AL 722a .2 2 243 c 0 ius or f d xz�2 . A 4 9LS 71 a 30 3 i -5_�; 2 IL -a v R% 2 7; 4 IT 41 gz t Q-8 IA si Lirt ..,e I c. a 24-1 r 7 F,- us -j. -Q .1 oc a- Q3 m so Eel. a v L6 it's ME Run i :.11,30_ 1_5 -3 to N N! hi 4L no a=yy p L Yt� V d1 Va LZ G�xCt V.pa YYYL u r + 6 CCx �r .YQi p� y Luo^ _Y`u t�0 CO�p rY QQ^L u �N FO i0, Y! 4 F- as 9 =� t $N 1'­S aza n a. as yp CC� p YYS iiiyia 6 t ■� »J( a6r yYYYNi L U C.si V iv 14 V `^ n�rV.ya '"� &° LQea 4i $C7 yA> 338« «.8� � w'?." Ex. P *'w_sf � ^` ' Y � �N�11 '�C{ i y � � a � Y Zi as � 6 ii � � w � Y N _. e 9 _ _ A � A L P aov hoc 1 si. Put 1''" GAY L ^2 ^° °M «$ SZE \M�WayS� Sxu � du�u ��� " �Q�g 8 5a ^° VSO ri gel G ' --a "yuifag ^ sa t,,s:" � Nei _R5 V z Q.� as Ei.i " r, a {a 1pt p wwN V M 0• NOY lla6y 1� —as 6L Qg¢ �LN•O 4 h p 4 �' 11 'I ZO i:v N4x -�� � w a u ea Big 6'CfCY� iC • O O C Y _ pVN� -EJ yMC v�9b yyYyyQJ y YN V`0 22 .+YN^ wAt� Vi CC1 �1 Cw L L. 1 33 +o qb c NAP• O AC y�C .. ";Iry _` eq !aM• �i�. 4n's ��n 44 so s4 ay rY Lirk+ N ssy it Y ,� "•��yFF Q.a ' v -a e ZOE L r Y N i a -59 r-.: N{I' S QA� 3 C ski _�wY4 t` il$'rryyp of =m 6i yu0 Cw �w�L li 0.M i L 4'LR `w� U �i{Yj',iaa aNi' Gall' ppL{�g ~ ar L ilp pQ� ~�p01 � ■ LLS Q i i� ^ Nw N� � LG9 Z ' b. r�' qg$ NYIa. Y.fiN� C r2i'j N'A �� O� Cia �Z. LS rgp.,`. t� ^ay�ta. ,.N VaLya +i a- a �j �I TTLffay � 'etH '�jC{!. NC£ 9 NOw iii '34• �k AO.YaE Vii. GYY.Cn awl ��1 L.O SO i 4 N.r•Orl Otis iRYr N *w •. Li p f/ Q Y bra u�« v"F in �•aL •.. s tv.Cc . g p D -a.3 t 4 JGq � 4 \ T vi YJw J ��; ✓ Y 'J i 4wlj ,n� °�jJ ,),Pppp- a�Q $�er;S !�` �• �; ca "vw�iJlj`t1$i ! s s°J VA wp 4w J y w" 00 � Nvim,, S: y+!ab OP YYI�w � � 7cG Ii -0 P 46 wb SO w °� ;� dbTyV •.:.. y �� �� �C l��J° i�. „ ,n �... d0��y�� y` ��jlyJ �� � 1� � �i1�J'1� �q O � D� � " � �� � 7� "�!`t�✓�`'fM \� �� � yl� �'�°�a o w�v •'��4 �N ir' J" �pre'� ;7► 'b 4' �bSb ° % Ilsfl 0. �1 T, aws N_'. 3r0 T. °�•�,ixx "" C7 J '�i J .n` Q a�✓ o�a os� v6" s Y� t� � � W L v 4 M iyfLl 4� VL ! M �'^`F�� O "0O � p A S �'3,c4 ♦a 1rrXi p : yC� 6yi N �yG �c�ia _r Co CN is Jkp p�p~ wit RYV aiY ?e xi ft N T N Cyt NNN li 14 f�µa' dC 1 bary� p 'K W � L fag,4 p� Imo'' 4 M1 NN N�ai Nµ f���N$ a14 Y�alr4b�L tlC..L t�l} 6 yp� M 4.�w Vi. �' iyy ,gyp+ N Ya+{ a W 1. +fit * N ggqp 4.'gj »�M Ya LL yy �;L�AGi 'L1� y YY 0.Y+ � NN M i+qi �4M. Niy�'��y+t Ml S CON` V� Iy... }y41 =L CyL �.�: W�� Ust r1y aVYN� SG ppL �ya� Ow '� MF 1q�Mg¢ iµi Si ,Y LYOy y l Ng -is a llie vj 12 1 M a »WR'p 7r kAl CA "i'"'t� #Y o fotf, M1{3 V�Li _w3 y V R g "mss ay spi�i ww3 a'taD11 �4MV. H13 ii.tMN i n in � r 0� a�� p� fa«. LYMM f.Li? SiV wr.W iVly1l{ µ �GK � � W L v 4 P Si y � 11�Nee C p S It a n : rob r. 1 Co 4a is F f�µa' dC 1 C.ti 'K i'C � L fag,4 p� Imo'' 4 M1 NN N�ai Nµ K1. W 1. VRI tDjf ctiit u jt iy *,y +4 44t tf! {a, K � ` E ,yrr, N FQ� b Y� 4 �s 3 � �U R iMi ]Y i0.cs n jrtltl�y�L L���d y$ OYL �.O +..r ii tl1 b La i> O�O M��La,y1C L j- 114 atw. Y u �� ^ f v 1tiy ii.w Q ai .w K N � rtr.a.. fat ppy��t & iMM siQ pt i LE 1 Imo'' +4 44t tf! {a, K � ` E ,yrr, N FQ� b Y� 4 �s 3 � �U R iMi ]Y i0.cs n jrtltl�y�L L���d y$ OYL �.O +..r ii tl1 b La i> O�O M��La,y1C L j- 114 atw. Y u �� ^ f v 1tiy ii.w Q ai .w K N � rtr.a.. fat ppy��t & iMM siQ pt i LE C= u S C Y Y O '•' =L1.6 N '■1nC�= w L y C C G �CdCa sp ge pi MCC.µ pJ ^�:(r�1 YY o al C 6 Ij +C+ YAM Y.y:g o a$ oar 370. Zj- . C L C i Ull m gs ' -nj�V -_ � L e� ` v +�^ .9 �L I 7 CM Y � I N Y CV, cc i 9 _u^ Nu • a ry� yyy.y� wB.0 ��.•y q C M Y yyO� pL,,. ti Y u�8p�t '� ,oyyQ tl dewy w " �ppr C `� D1 u WWW N =g pp y� N"aa .1y ppO V L�� G y »ctMgM\ Si•,.• �� w _ iA •••Y�� � �� NM{V,FY � Y _ a yyM vX� �u� Y! YZ Ic y *» O y Yt ci i ^-'4 IV a. }Y G Y 56� Y Y O 7 • M A S _wR ■ N Q� T iYY J si N Y C= u S C Y Y O '•' =L1.6 N '■1nC�= w L y C C G �CdCa pi MCC.µ pJ ^�:(r�1 YY w w C 6 Ij +C+ YAM Y.y:g o a$ oar 370. Zj- . L C i Ull + r1 M C a0a Y i� I I r� 1'. ,�i 0 U 11xTE : TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT U > October 28, 1987 tsri Chairman a--d Members of the "Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate � an6vr ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FM 02VELOPMENT REVIEW 87 a-4 LA PETITE - w e development ore . sml; care al^c-31T'ty on 1.86 acres of land in the Community Facilities District of the Victoria Planned Community, located on the north side of North Windrows Loop at Tipu Place - APN 227- 441 -26. I. PROJECT AND S SITE DESCRIP`', A. A Action Requested: Once of a Negative Declaration: B. S Surruunding Land Us .id Zoning: North - -- S Single 'Pair;►y esi en ial; Low-Medium Residential (4- 8 d±l#lling units per acre) South - - Singe Family Residential; Low-Medium Residential (4 -" P dwelling units per acre) East - V Vacant; Very Low Residential (1 -2 dwelling -units par acre) West - W Windrows Park; Elementary School Site C. G General P Plan Designations: Project s site-- Low-Medium -Residential (4.8 dwelling units per° acre) North - L Low - Medium Residential (4.8 dwelling units per acre) South - L Low -lY,�cdium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) East - V Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West - L Low - Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units pEr acre) 0. S Site Characteristics: The siie1111�s currently vacant with an average s s ope o percent from north to sov th. The site is bounded o on the north by single family residences, on the west by Windrows Park, and on the south and east by North Windrows LOOP. 'There are several mature Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees located on the <10te. ;,! I TEM E PI ANXIM' 0D S WON STAFF REPORT DR BT-� ;LA PETITE Octobtir 1987 Page 2 E. Parking Calculations: Number- of Number of Type Parking Spaces Spaces of lase`;, Ratio Reza `f red Provided Day Care 1 /Employee 12 12 1/5 Children 30 30 Total 42 42 H. ANALYSIS: ? A. General: The applicant is ,,- +equesting an environmental assessment for the 'constr4ction of a day care facility. Upon approval of the Negative D�,claration, the City Planner will grant approval of the projett� based on conditions recommended by the Design Review, Technie�nl Review, and Trails Advisory Committees. Day care is defined by( the Victoriz CgRimunity Plan as a community facility as ak schools and ch,.-ches. Community facilities are permitted us -.s within Residential Land Use Areas subject to the Development Revtew approval process. This is unique to the Vittoria Planned Community and would otherwise be subject to a Coiidit:onal Use Permit process: The victoria Community Plan encourages cozzwaity facilities in r_ locations "convenient to village residents" and to 1m3'1 ize dependoce on facilities outside the Comunity. The original concep^ for the Windrows Village envisioned a church site next to blindr'ows Elementary School. This was reflected on the development plans for this village tat the time, a church-war, interested in the sitar. Subsequently, various churches have looked at the site and determined that the size was insufficient for their needs. B. Design Review Committee- The Design Review Committee tEmeeick, ci Nie , a eman originally reviewed the plans on September 17, 1997. At that time, the Committee recommended that the plans be revises in the followi;ig areas: 1. Trees should be planted along the west p,�ooErty line to provide a buffer from the park. 2. A larger landscape Prea should be provided at the building entry. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR E7 -43 - LA PETITE October 28, 1987 Page 3 3. The Master Plan should be revised to include two access points and some indication of the size of f4 the future building. 4. Alternative architectural elements /styles should be explored to provide more interest in the building. j 5. The chain link fencing should be upgraded to wrought iron. In -additiow, the wrought iron fencing should be provided alalg the entire west property line. Subsequently, the applicant revised the plans and submitted them for Design Review consideration at the meeting of October 8, 1987. At that time, the Design Review Committee (Emerick, Tolstoy, Coleman) recom—wokided approval of the project subject to the following coed tioas 1. Trees 3houid be installed along the west property line adjacent to the play area to provide an edge and buffer between the site and,the park. 2. Landscaping should be installed along the rputh side of the building between the building ana,the Community Trail. v. 'technical Review Committee: The Technical Review committee bas reviewed the project and determined that,, the recommended conditions of approval, the project is consistent with the applica4le standards and policies of the City. D. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee Fevietied the proposal on September 16, 1987 and recommended approval subject to a requirement for a Community Equestrian Trail along the North Windrows Loop frontage consistent in design witW the existing trail located in Windrows Park. E. Environmental Assessments Staff has completed the environmental checklist Cvas identified that several Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees will' have to be removed for the construction of the building and related improvemeh -3 . The applicant will be required to maplace these trees as a condition of a Tree Removal Permit. Based upon this review, staff has determined that the proposes project does not have a ILI si,4nificat,t environmentai impact. E--3 October 28, 1987 J1, 41 'III. REGO96DATION' Staff recommends, that a Negative Declaration be A ued Devilopment Review 87-43, Attachments. Exhi' Dit "A" - Site Utilization kip,- Exhibit V - Site Plan )-�xhibit NV - Wilding Elevation'. Exhibit NE" - Master Plan, � i / PRM - A d. 7.1 N INK CITY (X RA NC C �C-" 'ON;CA TITLE: --l= PL.kNNI.NG DRTSM E X H I PIT., SCALE, C-3 t_ r r k4 + a -T+ �� ,.rarer. � \\ ��� s � •( ft `` via et Iv y F i t y t tom' 7l r xie�f�''f G r' .t t c tr _t `Z • 1 �r i 0 CITE' CF RANCM CLJC VK)NGA TITLE. PLANNING DIVLSICI EXHIBIT. �..�'- / _ SCALE: t lit CITE' C R.:�.''vCHO CUC-k,, ,\K): 1 ITEM: TITLE: PLAtitii.'VG I?I�'1SK EXHIBIT: C Z SCALE: E -8 1 �y yet � rt OMP w I sit �r C f p t lit CITE' C R.:�.''vCHO CUC-k,, ,\K): 1 ITEM: TITLE: PLAtitii.'VG I?I�'1SK EXHIBIT: C Z SCALE: E -8 1 �y yet � rt OMP E i jx 4 r: 2 1 777 - l I• �a fir/ .� / NORTH I L 11 1 Ak, E- /D I. j., N0Krl- A,0545W 144" LEI 11 DATE: O: FROM: 11TIRTT AT T A LY/"1TTA AT TTI. A 1-TA A va Va a.i aa.va uVa�Vaa STAFF REPORT October 28, 198'1 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 SECURITY MANAGEMENT - residential su v sion o e s ng am y o s and 3 comsxan lots on 67.67 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (1 -2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 2th Street - APN: 225 - 011 -35. I. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1985, the Planning Cq*ission gtn or a y' reviewed and approved Tentative Tract 12659 for the development of 135 single fawily lots and 3 common lots. The applicant has been working to record the final map but gill not be able to comptete the process prior to the expiration. As a result, the applicant is requesting a one year extension of time. H. ANALYSIS: Staff has analyzed the proposed time extension and has compareVthe proposal with the development criteria outlined inhe Etiwanda fpecific Plan. Based upon this review, the project meets the optional residential development standards of the Etiwanf Specific Plan for the Very Low Residential District. Staff has also determined that the tract map ;=} in compliance with the objectoves of the Genere. 1 an. III. RECOWENDATIOh: Staff recommends teat the Planning Commission grant a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract .12659 through adoption of the attached Resolution. Rey -tful u' ted, ._ )'Bra B City lanner BB:SM:te Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Tract Resolution of Approval ITEM F Fitt, GAFW, MITCHELL & ASSOCIATES LANG PLAM�llt7G CIVIL ENGINEERING 9330 BApELINE, SUITO 205 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, ESA 91701 • PHONE (714) 989990$ October 16, 1987 CITY OF P.ANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANTING DIVISION ATTN.: SCOTT MURPHY SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TEN?TATIVE TRACT 12659 Dear Mr. Murphy: We respectfully request a twelve- month`exteniaii6n of time for the recordation of Tentative Tract #12659,`ioceted at the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This protect received design review approval in August of this year, and a time extension is necessary to complete the remaining items of work necessary to permit reggr;dation of a final map. No changes to required conditions of 'dpproval are being requested *with this correspondence. Thank you for your considerrtion. Truly Yours, GARY ITCHELL & ASSOgXATES I ar7.ct he U re GM:cm a, CITY OF RANCHO CUC-� Nkj�q� TITLE: PLANNINC DIVSM'- ` EXHINT: SCkLL F-3 NK)RI 7K OMAN I CI Ir ()F T RANCHO CUCA,,Nl()!skA TITLE- PLANNING EXHIFIT SC ALL F—� RESOLUTION NO. i' A RESOLUTION OF THE kO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, APPROVIt;5 THE TIME liENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 12659 APR: 225- 011 -35 WHEREAS, a requast has been filed for a time extension for the above - described project, pursuant to Section 17.02.094; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission nditionaliy approved the above - described Tentative Tracc. SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the following` fi ndi ngs: A. That prevailing economic conditions hsy9 caused a distressed market climate for development of the project. B. That current economic, marketing, anal inJentory conditions make it unreasonable to develop file project at this time. C. That strict enforcement of the conditions of approval regarding_ expirations would not be consistent wit,,,. the Intent of the Development Code. D. That the granting of said time extension will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, p SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Coammission hereby grants a t:me extensn-Tor: Tract Applicant. Expiration 12659 Security Management November 13, 1988 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH LAY OF OCTOBER, 1987. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RARICHO CUCA140NU BY: Larry T. e a rman ATTEST: rau Buller, e,, y re PF F -5 PLANNING COMISStION RIMLUT'Idl NO. TT I265 SM-URtty MANA MENi' -� _ October 28, 1987 i 1 Page 2 if - I, Brad Buller, Oeputy Secretary of.te Planning" Commission of the City, or Rancho Cucamonga, do- hereby certify ti4at the foregoing Resolutiviv as duly and regularly introduced., passed anj adopted by the Planning Cowission of the City of Rancho'Cucaawnga, at a r;JNr meeting of the Planniig Commission held on xhe 26th day of Cctobtr, "398x, by the fnflrywwir�F;vate- to -k~:t. - -J AYES: C(i*ISSIANERS: ROES: COWISSI WEBS: ABSENT: ("OM 4ISSIONE, • 1 I { t i - , Al it i v !21�11 El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT 7' DATE: October. 28, 198? TO: Chairman and Members of the Pl,;-.'Ring Commission FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engiijeer SUBJECT: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 5996 - DAVID BOWDEN Submittal "of a Resa-Fution of Approvtr­_for_0e Deletion of a to ditior. of Approval requiring an"in-lieu fee for the fkr.;ure undergrounding of existing overhead ''utilities for a Nrcel Mao locate4 on the south side Af Wilson Avenue east of Mayberry Avenue. APH 201-180-59 I. BACKGROUND: On'- October 14, 1987, the Planning Commission cons,lder - ed an appeal by the applicant to delete the,requiratient for tt:9 paymi)Tt of in-lieu fees for the future undergroundihg of existing overhead utilities located on the opposite {north) side of Wilson Aven from the project. �'.,After considering all input on the issue, tM Com;.'i.Ssion'1ecided to givant the applicant's request. II. ACTION REgUESTED- Approval of the attached ResolutiGa' deleting the undergroundin n-liw fee payment requirement. Respectfully submitted, Barryete!wdwar Senicr Civil engineer BRH*sd Attachments. Re3olutiel , of Approval Utility beation Exhibit RESOLUTION N0._: A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCRI., CUCAMONGA APPROVING THE DELETION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REQUIRING THE PAYKNT OF IN -.LIEU FEES FOR UTILITY UN®ERGROUNDING A5 CONTAINEC IN RESOLUTION MG. 87 -123 APPROVING TENTATIVE PARC�.4 ,MAP NUMBER 5496 WHEREAS, on the 31st day of July, 1987; a complete applicati ?n was filed by DaviO, Bowden for an appeal of the Condition of App"val requiring the payment of .in -lieu fees for the future undssrgrounding�\of zxisting overhead utilit`fes; and WHEREAS, on the 16th day of September, 1987, tie Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a "rpubiic hearing -to consider the above - described appeal and, on laid date, concluded the public hearing by erring the matter, with the consent of the appellant, back to the Planning Commission for its evaluation; and WHEREAS, on the 14th day of October, 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission held a hearing to consider `the above - described appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolved as follows: SECTION 1 That the following findings have been made: 4 1. That the map i`s consistent with the Generals Plan, subject to the approval of- ,Variance No. 87 -08. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision 4S consistent with the Generar'Plaa. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. 4. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage, public health ;•oblemc or have adverse affects on abutting property. SECTION 2: That Special'"ondition No. 2 of Resolution No. 87 -123, pertain n� g to the payment 'of in -lieu fees for utility undergrounding, shall be deleted. t 3 J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. P�1 �a996 v David Bowden October 28, 1987 - page 2 ttr APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1967. PLANNING COMMISSON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: rad Buller, Deputy Secretary 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoMg Resoluti,3n was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning f I'. . rommission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at,a regular meeting of the 11anning Commission held on the 28th day of October, 1987, by the- following vote-.to-wit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK, BLAKESLEY, TOLSTOY \\ s NOES: COMMISSIONERS. CHITIEA, MC NIEL ABSENT: CO!MISSIONEKZ: NONE - i 1 n t N3n'VH r La (t } nr a � a v a F-7, us � d 4> uj 4 14 "J Cjjp i %VfWI eSWd G3. £IL1ddb � Y, it w 3 +n tol w dvw z W �7u � W vt a E CITY OF RANCHO} CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 28, 1487 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comniss;on FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Bruce Cook, Associate Planner t� 197; SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -04G - IA4 UCYLLUFMtNI - A request to amend the General -Wan Land se ap rom Low- .Aedium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre} to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre) for 5.06 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald - APN: 208 -031- 18, 19. (Continued from September 23, 1987). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT mrRUPCNi 01 -UO - 1A: UtYLLUMIMM - A. request to amend the eve opmen s r c s ap rom ow- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to High Residential (24 -30 dwelling units per acre) attached with the Senior Housing Overlay District (SHOD) to the base district for 5.05 acres of land, located on the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald - APN: 208- 031 -18, 19. (Continued from September 23, 1987). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 87 -04H - IN. UtYLLUi'IMtNI - A request to amend the Lar167USe ement o l 4—genera) Plan from Low - Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line Road - APN: 208- 031 -17, 54, 55, 56 and 57. (Continued from September 23, 1987). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1"QnurMul or -vv - iA, ULYMUMIMtNI - P request to amend the Development s r c s Map from L ow- Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) to Office Professional for 1.69 acres of land, located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south of Base Line road - APN: 20 8-031 -17, 54, 55, 55 and 57. (Continued from September 23, 1987). DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - A Development Agreement between e CifY Of anc o Cucamonga and TAC Development Corporation for the purpose of providing a Senior Housing Project per the requirements of the Senior Housing Overlay District (Section 17.20.040 of the Development Code, Ordinance 211) for 170 apartment units to be located otii the south side of Base Line Road, west of Archibald Avenue - APN: 208- 031 -18 and 19. IT�kiS H, 1, J PLP.NNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TAC DEVELOPKENT Octarer 28, 1987 Page Z I. ABSTRACT: TAG Development has submitted a development package, nc u ng General Plan A+aendmen�, Development Distrf_ t Amendments, Design `Zeviews rnd Development Agreement, to develop a senior hausingroject and ad acenI aresiical office building in the vicinity of the southwest cornier of Bsse Line Raad arcd Archibald Avenue. Same issues with bath the design reviews and development agreement remain unresolved at this time, and these iteans are net yet ready to be placed on the Planning Commission agenda. Staff is recommending that all the proposed amendments and development agreement be continued to the Commission agenda_ of November 25, 1987 to enable all elements of the development proposal to be heard at a single time.. II. BACKGROUND: TAC 'Development Corporation is proposing to develop etFi -approximate 7 acres to the south and west of the Base Line Village Shoppit;g Center located at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Archibald Avenue with a 170 -unit senior housing project and adjacent 25,000 square foot medical office building. This development package includes GPA 87 -04G and DDA 87 -05 to redesignate the 5 acre senior housing site from Low- Medium Residential to High Residential with a SHOD overlay, GPA 87 -04H and DDA 87 -06 to redesignate the 1.69 acre medical office site from Low - Medium Residential to Office, DR 87 -33 to approve development plans for the senior housing site, and OR 87 -34 to approve development plans for the medical office site. In addition, a development agreement between the City and TAC Development is being submitted regarding the senior housing site per the requirements of the SHOD to ensure that the rental units will be affordable to the target senior population and will be available over the long term. The General Plan amendments and Development District amendments were first heard by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 23, 1987. The Commission continued these items to tfie meeting of (kober 28, 1987 to allow the amendments to be heard concurrently with the design reviews and development agreement to allow the entire development package to be r4viewed at one time. As of this date, site plan issues regarding site drainage remain unresolved with the development reviews and they are not yet ready to be scheduled for the Planning Commission agenda. Also, the City Attorney has indicated they are still eking revisions to the form of the development agreement and it u1so is not yet read,," to be schedulO for the Commission agenda. In consideration of thus, staff wo�1,A recommend that the General Plan Amendments, Development District t4endments, and the Development Agreement be continued to November r5, 1987 to enable all elements of the entire developmnt proposal to be heard at a single time. 9, Y_, T_ 0 I PLANNIQ' CON+gATtdrDh Srr.,,v kz`nbf TAC ' tNsMO MENT October 28, 1987 Page & III. RECOMMENDAT O: Staff would recommend that the Planning Gomaission s, continue all of the titled items as referenced in the beginning of this report to tfr" greeting of November 25., 1987. R�esp lld+ sfitted, l Ll un rc i� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RED" 01ft' uvrouer zu, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner C1JCA`W, j t � 0 0 UI� > SUBJECT:. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 13359 1977 WAL [UK - A custom lot su :v s on of acres of T a� Into & parcels in the Very @,ow Residential district (less than 2 "dwelling units per ache), located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of F'Illside Road - APN 1061 -691- 9, 10 and 11. RELATED FILE: VARIANCE 8.7 -15 I. 3ACKGROUND: On September 9, 1987, the Planning Commission con uc e a public hearing to receive input and testimony on the proposed development of 6 single family custom lots. At that time, with the recommended condition of approval for a Community Trail on the south tract boundary, the lots within the subdivision would not average 22,500 squa - --% feet as required by the Development Code. The Planning Commission stated that the requirement of a 15 -foot community trail was necessary to implement the Master Plan of Trails within the Equestrian Overlay District. The Planning Commission, however, felt that there may be sufficient justification to consider a variance on lot size average due to the amount of improvements required with the subdivision. As a result; the Planning Commission continued this item to allow the applica to file a variance request. H. AMALYSIS• Fullowi'ng the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant Ti.'ed a variance request to allow the reduction in the average lot size. An analysis of the variance is contained in the staff report for Variance 87 -15. With the recommended conditions of approval, the lots within the subdivision, rang,ng from 20,700 square feet to 22,500 squa;•e feet in area, conform to the Development Code minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. The average lot size of 21,392 square feet does not conform to the Code requirement of 22,500 square feet. Therefore, the tract can only be approved if the related variance is approved. A detailed descril% ion of the ,carious Committee reconmendations is contained in the attached September 9th Planning Commission staff report. ITEM K PLANNING STAFF REPORT TT 13359 =' WALU!', <" a October 28, 1987 page 2 i Ill. FACTS FOR FINDINGS., In order for the Planning Commission to approve lentat.1ve Tract 13359, facts to support the following findings must be made: I. The tentative tract is consistent N,,th the General plan, Development Code and Sp!Fific plans; 2. The design or the improvements of the tentative tract is consistent the General plan, Development Code and Specific plans; 3. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; 4. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substant.al environmental damage and avoidable injury to humane and wildlife or t�reir habitat; S. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; 6. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict any easement acquired by the public at large now of r-"lcord for- access through or use of the property within proposed subdivision. IV. CORRESPOWWCE• This item has been advortised in Thr. Daily Report ^,O newspaper - notices were sent to all property d%—ie—rs--WMWWJW feet of the project site. Y. RECOWEND,�,-ION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a pubilc hearing to receive all input and testimony on t,e proposed project. If, after receiving input, the planning Onwission determines Zat there is sufficient justification fur the variance, then approval of Tentative Tract 13359 through adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. Resp ully 5 fitted, /r1a planner 88:SM:ko Attachments: September• 9, 1987 Planning Commission Staff Report Resolution of Apprival with Conditions r CITY OF RANCHO CCTV ; MONGA t STAFF RK?Or� a _ o DATE: September 9, 1987 1977 TO;., chaff,'-4n and Members of the Planning commission PAN: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Piannar SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND T NTATIYE TRACT 13359 - cus c(A "Tv A s" o n -OT 4:79 acres n an TH o--six (6) parcels in the ,`4�ry ,i ow Residential District ` (less than i,dwelling' units p�r:acre), located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of Hillsi6e Road - APN 1061- 691-9, IU and 11. I.`; PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Actinn Requested: Approval of subdivision design, conceptual grading Plan, and issuances of a Negative Declaration. 8. Prod; � 3t Density: 1.58 dwei l i ng:. 411i is per acre C. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Worth "`- vacan£a ery 5—w Residential (less than ,2 dwelling units per acre) Sacizh Single Family Residential; Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) i Vest - Floyd Stark Elementary School; Very Low Density Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) West, - Single Family Residential; Very Low Residential (lese than 2 dwelling uvAts pqr acre) . D. General Plan Designations: Project Site ar k-S e North - Very Low Residential (less,,than 2 dwelling units per acre) South - Very Low Re ,,idential (less theta 2 dwelling units per acre) Eal*t - El veentary School We,t - Very Low Residential (less than 2 dwelling units per acre) E. Site Characteristics: The site is currentl j vacant with an average slope of o 6 percent from northwest to southeast. I 4•r, t- PLANNUG COMKISSSE TAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TROT 133b9 - WALTON September 9, 1987 Page 2 II. ANALYSIS' l A. General: T6(p__applicant is proposiar to develop six lot's rang ng in size from 20,700 square feat to 25,900 square feet in area. The lots are intended to be sold for custom home development, ti B. tle�si_gn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Ba.iter, RE u1 er revr eweea the proposal on November 6, 1986. At ` that'time, the Conaittee recommended approval of t" project subject to the following conditions: 1. The driveways (curb cuts) on lots 3 and 4 should be limited to 12 feet in width. 2. The drt.c4ay on Lot 3 should be located o„ the east side of the property frontage. 3. The driveway on Lgfi 4 should be located on the west side of the pr. rertsy frontage. C. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed a proposal on ovember 4, 1986. The Committee determined that the drainage of the public street would have to be handled within a storm drainpipe, as opposed to an at -grade structure as proposed by the appli ;ant, in order to protect the residences to the south of ,{:e site. As a result, an easement for the proposed storm draiu','pipe and any grading necessary for construction of tiia storm drain pipe was required across from the elementary schc,)l site. The applicant, has q�,Osegilently obtained the cecelsaiy easement frorp the school di' Act. The final desion .of the storm drain 00 , 'will be rcv'iewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the finial map. P. Trails Advisory Committee: The Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal on may 20, 1987 and recoumended approval, subject to the following requireaents: 1. T rovide a 15 -foot wide community trail with o•fered dedication along the southern tract boundary. The community trail fencing should be provided along the northern edge of the trail. ;e 'hails Committee stated that the dedication I necessary in order to provide another ,-irtion the Beechwood Community trail -k.by as require the Master plan of Trails (see Exhibit "D" }. 6the t existing trail south of the tract is tweli ty ,,(20) feet in width but is, however, an equestrian easement and is not dedicated to the City, i. PLANNING COWISS1C TAFF REPORT TENTATIVE TRACT 13359 - WALTON --,80 der 9, 1987 Page S 2. The 15 -foot wide local trail easement along the west tract boundary should extend up to Street NAY 3. The local feeder trail shown along the southwesterly lot line of Lot 2 should by deleted. 4. All offers of dedication and ed.,_'strian easement are to be shown on the final Wrap and are to be submitted for the review and approval of the Trails Committee prior to recordation of the final Tip. With the incorporation of the recommendations of tho Trails Committee, the tract design, as proposed by the appiica t, will not be in conformance with the Development Code. The Development Code er- quires ;that the lots within the subdivision average 22,500 square feet_ -Ate}, With the 15 feet of dedication for the commui' y trail, the lots will only aver4e 21,392 square feet in area. In order to comply with the recow*andations of the Trails Committee, the tract asap will have to be redesigned. The applicant, however, feels that the de6�:cntion is excessive - and wishes the Planning Commission to review and consider the recommendations of the Trails Committee. R. Environmental Assessment: The applicant -'tas completed Part I of e iffit a u Staff has completed Part II and determined that the proposed development will not have any adverse environmental impacts. If the Planning Commission concurs, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. III. FACTS i:OR FINDINGS: With the recommended conditions of approval, e ra: map, as submitted, will not be in conformance with the standards and objectives !Llf �.1e Development Code. The lete will average 21,392 square feet in area. The Development Code requires tracts within the Very Low Residential iM strict, to provide an average lot size of 22,500 square feet in are,:. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has beerw advertised in the Ma Report as a newspaper public he:ritr�g and notices were sent to a1T1 proper owners within 3O0 feet of the project. PLWAG C TA,'T REPORT TENTATIVE '- W` iJALTOM -` ' Septembi r 9, 1W, Pale 4 V. RKOWA. IM; 5-ta �f reconw►ends that the Plirning" Coawdssi6r cof� W v lip, tmtinaW on the prope.;ed d6velopwent. if, , after receivi" all input, tie Planning ComOssian concurs the with recuwwendations off' the advisory cown,ttess and the applicant is unWilliho to rev o¢ the subdivision map, staff recormends that the Planning Ccww%ss1 ►n OrV -, 'tentative Tract 13369 due to inconsistencIOs w4th the Development Cede through adoption of the attached, Rolut'r7, r, Respectfully suboftted, "? ra BuXt 1 City Planner BB:�k -te l.` Attachments: Ex'" ;.bits - Site Utilization Map Exrrrbit Srabdivision Map "C" Exhibit. Conce al Grad? ''41ae "D ", Exhibit -i Master velar of Tr°mils Resolution fi Denial i t••:b Eris a VACANT Vy T1 Wl NORTH CITY OF RANCM CLVtkvK. NGA PLANNING DRISKX�,,� '7- EXHIt, - SCALE- a v IaL�( It CITY CF -_ „- PLANNING DfN' t'ALL _ �f l CITY I$ CUC� TITLE: ti law I ALM iILLSuDL SANYQ _ f V EX1$rtNG COMMUNITY • 0 • o *PROPOSED COMM ITY J d11111111111gNREGIONAL M1\1 ..T1—,SY .*TEM i E �i1i1 W c 6r1?. z oc us z tS 4. ji rr '' ;NORTH CITY CF ITEIvt 4r`-115:-:3sg PL 4-NN ;:°oil LitiISK)jN E3iP-(T: ALE: _ t II j1 If Ask RESOLUTION NO. ,:A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COrMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING TENTAT tPHIRE E TRACT MAP NO. 13359, A RESIDENTIAL Sum viSION OF 6 S LE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.79 ACRES OF LAND IN ,-THE VERY L RESYDENTTAL DTSTRICT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF STREET, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD - APN 1061- 691 - 09,110 and 11 A. Recitals. Arlan ]+_alton -has filed },an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13369 as descrllked in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative „Tract Map request is referred to, as "the application ". M) On the 28tth of October, 1987, the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that elate. (iii) 411 legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. _. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved 5y the Planning -ommission of %e City of Rancho.Cucamonga as tollc4s; 1. This Commission hereby spe.�ifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the cbove- referenced public hearing on October 24, 1987, including written and oral staff reports, together win public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: it (a) The application applies to property located on the east side of S9pphire Street, sou'li of Hi,'' -ode Road with a street frontage 'o;` 40 I, feet P d lot depth of 665 feet'and is " JJ entiy vacant; and I (b) The property to the north, south, east and west is zoned for residential uses. Thw property to the north is presently vacant. The property to the south and vest is developed with single family residences. the property to the east is developed with an elementary school. (c) The proposal is in compliance with the Master Plan of Trcils and the objective: of the Eq:estrian Overlay District. (d) The development of 6 single family lots on 3.79 acres of land is consistent with the Very Low Residantial land use desigtration of the General Plan. ,!r If PLANNING COW I�V►L RESOLUTION TT 13359 MALT October 28, 199' } Page 2 3. Based upon *o,'substantial evidence presented to this owmission during the above - referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concluAes as follow: (a) That tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan Development f9de, and specific plans; and (b), The design or irprovements of the tentative tract is consistets—v- ' with the General Plan, Development Code, and specific plans; and (ei .The site is physf.ally suitable for the type of development proposed; and (d) ?he design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage and ay*idabie injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and WO The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious pub ?ic health probleas; and (r) The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the public at large, now of record, for access trrough or use of the property wiVsin the A 1. A.? K] propose su vision, d. this Comm"i3sion hereby finds and certifies that the project hes been reviewed and considered in compliance with tae California Environmencal Quality Act of 1970 and, fui,ther, this Commission iiereby issues d Negative Declaration, 5. Based uran the findings and. conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached .Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, Planning Division 1) Approval of le�itative Tract 13359 is'40arted subject to approval of Variance 87�45. _2) The driveways on Lots 3,-end 4 sha'si be limited to 12?_ FeNt _ in width, Thr revised labs shall be reviewed and apprOdd by the City Plairier prior ties issuance *f buildirtt eerurits 3) The driveway on Lot 3 -shall be located on the east sir9e of th &' lot and thy-drivewdy on Lot 4 shall be ' located on the west side Of the lot. The - revised plans shall bereviewed and ispp -owed by the City Planner prior, to the issuance 6f building ,permits. EJ PLANNING COW SSION RESOLUTION TT 133,69 - WALTON October 28, 1987 pag", 3 k2Lneerl 4sion Existfa2 Overhead Utilities: 1) a. Sapphire Street: An in-lieu feij as 6,14.ribution to the U, ure tfn-d*—rqr6ffhding of the existing ovzY-h­(-Ad util V,,ies (telecommunication and electric,11) on the:�profect side of Sapphire Street shall; be paid to the City 'prior to recordation of the final map. The fee shall be one-half the adopted unit amount times the lengtL­--cf the project frontage on Sapphire Street. 2) a. Utilitl?, lines (electrical) extending from Sapphire Street easterly along the pr6posiZI Street *A" shall be underground or removed, not in service* frem Sapr)hlve Street to the last pole located within Let 1, TY urderegrotinding is accessary, reimbursment for one,..',half the City adopted cost Is feasible because the. property to the north is undeve, on,-',,d. b. The developer shall construct the eet Improvements frontage W the "Not, a the IV I along pl� parce) to the satisfact-k'an it the City Engineer. c, An underground storm dra!° pipe shall be constructed and appropriate easements ded sated to convey flows from the south end of Street *A" to Turk Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The size of the catch basin and storm drain pipe are o Oo determined by the final drainage Study. d. The lot line adjustment as shown on th! tentative trac , tdap shall be recorded prior to recordation of the final tract map. J O. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the a0ption of this Resolution. APPROVED AM ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987. PLANNING C"ISSION OF THE CITY 0_ RANCho cUCAMONGA BY Urry T._W7Te-T,-Wa1rMan ATYEST: IM74 Bu I I er, D—epfy- Secretary PLANNING COilISMflNE AESOtUTI(?N TT 13399 - WALTO1i s" October 28, I9 &7 Pagt 4 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning 'oariission of the 'City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoiutiort Nas duly and wegularly introduced, passed, and adOpted Oy the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meting of the Planning C9mission held on the 28th day of October, 1987, by the following vote -to -wit: ,AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: r. r Ij f4- - M. �Y L•M`OY�f.Y CiV �� tfif Y tli US 1•r�OYy ,ogogp GC� G„ ,p � i�q��6,Y Si �CaY +YY��V a &C G ywi ° L Lv6{ Z6 Ypp'aare as,p.. +q r, Pgr sit 2g -#v— N eras�p _y xsx"s _ate, �Y 2 1; q Y+RL rTf N $ N Y mA1a I � - 1 9 V n� . ^Y wyyyy _m". gn: > iii La �« Y N YC�♦♦w�aff[[ y�N 16 �, T M 5Y yyYYY OCMNnY. M. NC V «Y1 e� 6 Ypi C��Y y ^p. p� 'C� Y C.�. W Y 2 C i ru +gypp bb� r.- «. NY iRNMYY x � Ra MO ��Ytl 6C Y `. al. N. F. a t T =Yi in 3y. QQ h� MA Y Q 2!A— p i iI! I �i mN Y u }c�jam �L•. ylye3 Lr. c > ' �O �j��ii A +r tiry ow Yyy \ J Q "Yiaa fyQ`� ; MME p} Y C iY1 C ^(( 51 1_5 ? Ilf i x V 4V' a f0. a YY K{�N L .c Oa�S ML1�M + µTy} YMMf' T�so� Vw� ■s� GL ~� fiat MMGt °�l1�r p y+qw *f TP M Pis G C 'i .TiT. X -- You r °.,� .C. Yr V CYC O. 8 {O�+Vf y L YaO+ 6� s�0 Y � N p 1S+^ + �t Y Als 7% g°t� NZ $y �_ p 44 G 4t h --i Y.lpy av= 73 Y ^u4 A f L is 12T Lq q N q +++++y33333 q 440 a L — A a( q 6T �glF C9 a a $1T 31�LiYs g! WITL L O w. 2ZU * i L «N L bitt � Lp� �V L" 2 ` p Lp G .6C U q —N .a M• aHx -ea �•n:� t. ii p p �� p � U s 6 °�i� Nei 8 Lqy Y MrN y Y fey Nr 4 'i �VI�N- R-+1.i iit� �L��O �l C �MCV zz AL 'Hil Pit. Y Cj. S Y S 0. i =-,,2 �6sZoe: 3 g'7rfzI �iLgAsg —> N— 9:54 ��� �Sg�� �� +mod 9 Y a Y 4 j J �wLwnn�N p'i a'c s p ` q M � a.- M 3g' L YCC �v o6 uIL `a6G/ +O� .r °5 "sT _q 4 •y NY y q� n m v +4 L E_ in ii 21 yy N46 w. 2ZU * i L «N L bitt � Lp� �V L" 2 ` p Lp G .6C U q —N .a M• aHx -ea �•n:� t. ii p p �� p � U s 6 °�i� Nei 8 Lqy Y MrN y Y fey Nr 4 'i �VI�N- R-+1.i iit� �L��O �l C �MCV zz AL 'Hil Pit. Y Cj. S Y S 0. i =-,,2 �6sZoe: 3 g'7rfzI �iLgAsg —> N— 9:54 ��� �Sg�� �� +mod 9 l W W 4 i .COr� CD 'p OC a� OO POa°+n -.2iYYO��a ^s Y !R uv leg �° X14. Y N i 014`9 Sg'd 1.: -'\ UNS _ H 3 Y L Uzi o^�� .. `tt,l!++� a +V _`��,:. �,r {•)O�•{ey �� •*sV�ijr �.� ��s.�+q"' r `�'y O` pQ .° i vC`w +±pe�T ^ ^y y '4�'�Ya -S yy yn �a was- Y^ {pp1^ f!>I°Vj.Q ;'o a c Y� L ':y. Y. Y6� a EMC I *I + °� -98a2 -a3 1 :* s § 13K y1n,CC"i =X N gc .3e Masi V y qp N 1 yyW aN; Ry 4 ���°r Y /�P1 �QQM1 NLN YO Y1Y�iVw�C.H yQN C`N Mi� y3 ^�101� •I"IQ° �~ l{ .M°-aa m al ,Yi 6+W »�S" O'$„N,� w� 111'N�L,. -�: �Yw$ ��a >p�$ ^d �Lg =* ° eN "ya. Le Ym.p t'; {N� yMeG LN LrL ■fpJL /O YNa ��� NQ4 ^�ryr��y�Npl�yp ��� � �M C���Q �Yy VrwM4N tN^ cNY 3N0 �'Ni aL10Lt P. al� ^060 V3 v p OYC4 +.1. \ •CN V ^rr OA b �\`.. 4NT A 6� taL.q�OiM +`ag lailm:c p v O3 Y AV. � Y 0�1 OIN o T +.ie I« Hr f. y ~VV� ay w�Ct Q: u0 M 4 N N.1l L�„ r lil 1tdC �M1y'Q �7 � �yyCY Y+QraL C 6N IY O.. Xf A212 'u ri W W= ^ ♦wN �G ^,Y 11 L µ�yC� �� T. gil1yj�' -4j CIL 33 ^q Q' g rig. n w«ya u{1> Y.Y Ny I� � Y �ti• M O a_L n Yy //n i a.S=.. U . w Gcs SimC o.oH .22 ^ w iIC I +`ag lailm:c p v O3 Y AV. � Y 0�1 OIN o T +.ie I« Hr f. y ~VV� ay w�Ct Q: u0 M 4 N N.1l L�„ r lil 1tdC �M1y'Q �7 � �yyCY Y+QraL C 6N IY O.. Xf A212 'u ri W y1 V � YGa'ii�O u a g Y S CL �i tiD�s S ,y i. € ^g.�7 y$y V p^ Y�� � Y!O Nf�V'~G.i 110�9 G Gqi tiW {yQ SC�� �u.�C �ii. ^ii «N� S UK ��•� �8�s 'oGy�gg S � �� _ 1Yyy jig dL8 t° ±ear °'�y �i5 y� �,^ ^tl� = V� C � y Y fig$ - '. a M i O•LF VUI riut i9 3a3iJf •y °$ y 'r Iwnd t z.'1EY� Y- n 4 �t .0 M ai =�� l gg v _I rs _ wG 75^w i1 p$gaa y `e 8 a 21t� YTi.N. y�r 222 g ax ya�A q�a e=�Y� i 1� y�pN ..sj y1 V � YGa'ii�O u a g Y S CL �i tiD�s S ,y i. € ^g.�7 y$y V p^ Y�� � Y!O Nf�V'~G.i 110�9 G Gqi tiW {yQ SC�� �u.�C �ii. ^ii «N� S UK y1 V � YGa'ii�O � V Y S CL �i tiD�s S �� V p^ � yYp�" {yQ SC�� pC ■• S° O LpL r"6ppy ��•� �8�s 'oGy�gg S � �� _ 1Yyy .ya}gq YY %U, L Y y� = 4G1 � a y C, fi V'3 VUI riut i9 3a3iJf •y °$ 'r Iwnd t z.'1EY� Y- n 4 �t a ai =�� l Y O` O $ M � 3 i 4 Y Y Y M to a m i j > d C�}r Ci &r Or w� L N N w� �S L r �A �4 >p Y as �� 5 2 Y y r i Li to f �i tiD�s 0.$i rc u V V p^ � yYp�" {yQ SC�� pC ■• S° O LpL r"6ppy Y � Y 3�3.rY yyM OYCNL Y •a� +• y� Y N E':t 1 Z 4G1 ,p f, V ^qyY• L C, fi V'3 'r Iwnd pp V z.'1EY� Y- n 4 �t a ai =�� QTR gg v _I rs _ wG 75^w i1 p$gaa y `e wq V��YC e=�Y� i y�pN ..sj ..tL� i Fnl.r •r Y O` O $ M � 3 i 4 Y Y Y M to a m i j > d C�}r Ci &r Or w� L N N w� �S L r �A �4 >p Y as �� 5 2 Y y r i Li to f �i w v rc u V V p^ ao� a Z 4G1 ,p f, V ^qyY• L a pp V � pCy N' L O li Lf la _ �{y' PN / M 0 Y�C .�Ci� = M 4 L Q� -• � N I� O T j - Y C �f � OOOGGp111 N L p Y 4 V �.. M S ■My Yae LpY i t? �a ■1 Y L J¢ u way M pp oy .S S 8 . ,y�� ^Y "YV� N �w�� '�� is L Y ♦1. �� L � O"L1 r N S ON 1 M.i�O1 1. a ryyS1. a � Z F $L X0Y1 v x C � p Lid f. j ° Uy c 4 I -°.2x: utulM��g i y li I '�f S= 4S h9 w` �l yM LaC C L C� L CMY �Sn. y� JS rr yy yVy.. L N vy Op 9 G p L� Y p�C fS t WS �. °p��I L L � \. �1 n R °4 �N/♦ NG L vgw a�((`` �— NN�gp+�:`g a , —I "¢i °+rp%.N•.. �gcos Ll �L $u I =1 -'SITS .t�. °, Y'O. C AIM j�!'e'gc tpS, i C N� ele i S -A : W i A y N m OVE ZS it of aM -Y a jj Q—.}:o� Y�Yi Ji~p��p, �a� YYYgy • cYLY d���� ° .L. _ A Y �"O O.q; yl YU ,c 11a.. qN a T. bCX IyL +gi i�Z q ^'� VM Ol a_ «C n 111 4 `\,,,. V~ V C «M i vai`oi.iST, rj'i� twl�f iu w.a.Lf+L..awiiiiiv 7i� uii .rte i 4 �u 1y 0 �x a$ c M� C ?a V �M SAC Z V gu �y i Y Z� M -s V N M O^ V�N C N s N �4S Y yy g gff � a pappp N � p3p' L g ■6 � � � V F dew sYS4 R� 4 ..i * L k�u �l1M.Y �ti 4Y � >ts Car. 6C7 1 i x L Y M �ry fix% a �� I 'Z4: tit Ft 1 L �M• 3 L 4a� q Al `� ���• Z-3, qy� 4 V M yy s RR V Tom"•` ��A _ 4�1A iN iW .a 1 I 0701-02 010 -28 -87 PC Agenda 1 � a vS OL a y ; w �4 y j lrt sle A ,qy yaYy ll. Y �yM wN D.AL L N1. p AYA A � � � O. syD� ��jY�II N Vi�A. M�pM ia. M� M N y�Y 1. aj ON tt G pG gy'k N Y•'$ N Gw_n �t �aYfr.� wQ * nv to c MqM .a yi a 4 N V NaYR '' $.a a� ' .o-;Z j+a N� Ha Ya t G'.0 ^' 2 pr .. ` as 5= 0t C 0 A V at �0 �1/ Q6 G ±�My� CDN xr„p Qa O 1p `d�} VN4Q INC as A CsQ0�.y. yy O.Nq yC� 9...q(yyw 1{{i e. Nyy y � A _to L N.. .. G �.M yG s. IIL u I �fw.Ti to ^N +HY�ART ;y K 4Y�• bi~u r A7y. M .It 'w y� r:l +4w Jam". 3 Njjjj+f+f M�. Yl VJ j7+ 0 El CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. ��CAMO STAFF REPORT �9 N�'� a c�- LL T 4 O F , Z DATE: October 28, 1987 U 19;7> TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRO: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSIAENT AND VARIANCE 87 -15 - WALTON - A request a reduce the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet in area to 21,392 square feet in area in conjunction with a six (6) lot subdivision located on the east side of Sapphire Street, south of 11illside Road APN: 1061- 691 -10 and 11. KELATED FILE: Tentative Tract 13359. I. BACKGROUND: On September 9, 1987, Planning Commission conducted a public he arimg to receive input and testimony an a proposed development of six single family custom lots. At that time, a coodition of approval required that a Community Trail be provided along the :'outh tract boundary. With this additional dedication, the subdivision could no longer meet the minimum average lot size required by the Development Code. The Planning Commission stated that the requirement of a 15' Community 'Frail was necessary to imp't.ement the Master Plan of Trails within the Equestrian Overlay District. ThP Planning Commission, however, felt that there mqy be sul-icient ju!zZification to consider a variance request due to the amount of improvements required with the subdivision. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a e uc on in the minimum average lot size from 22,500 square feet in area to 21,392 square feet in area. In considering this variance request, the Planning Commission may wish to consider the following items: 1. The unusual configuration of the site greatly restricts the design of the subdivision. The site is a flag lot design with a 40' wide strip of land fronting onto Sapphire Street. As a result, access to site is limited to a single street entering the project and cul- de- sacing within the larger portion of the site to the southwest. 2. The proposed lot sizes are consistent with the surrounding area. The tract to the south and to the west across Sapphire Street were developed at the R -1 20,000 zoning designation of the County. As a result, the lot sizes within those Tracts are approximately 20,0^ square feet. The current proposal meets or exceeds the lot, sizes of the surrounding developments. ITEM L a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT VARIANCE 87 -15 - WALTON F October 28, 1987 Page 2 1II. FACTS FOR FINDINGS. In order for the Planning Commission to approve the var Once, the Development Code requires that the following findings muct be met: 1. That the strict and literal interpretation and,, -enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. 2. That there are exceptirnal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district. 3. That strict or literal interpretation of enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4. That granted a va' -'Ince would not --onstitute a grant of special privilege inconsi: ;ht with the limitations of other properties classified in this'same district. S. That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in The Daily Report newspaper and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct- a pu c hearf-9 to consider input and elements of t?Js project. If, after such consideration, the Planning Commission can support the required findings, then adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval would be appropriate. Respe ully su ted, rod 1 City P1 ner BB:SM:vc Attachments: Fxhibit *9 - Site Utilization Exhibit "B" - Tract Map Resolution of Approval L-,7, ._� l ( '11 Fff1FF77+ 4 Ilk ua Iy Ila L CITY rrE� t: _ � �•� TITLF- PLANNINU DIVISION EXHIPI T., a SCALE- L-4 �' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 87 -15 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE MINIMUM AVERAGE LOT SM :FRUM 22,500 SQUARE FEET TO 21,392 SQUARE FEST IN AREA FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 6 LOTS IN TPE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SAPPHIRE STREET, SOUTH OF HILLSIDE ROAD - APN: 1061- 591 - °;0 AND 11. P. Recitals. (i) Arlan Walton has filed an application for the issuance of the Variance No. 87 -15 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On October 28,1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamc:iga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution, NOW,. THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. ';,his Commi.sion hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set foith in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on October 28, 1987, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testi, nny, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a.) The application applies to property located on the east side of Sapphir!r Street south of Hillside Road with a street frontage of 40 feet and lot depth of 665 feet and is presently vacant; (bi The property to the north, south, east and west is zoned for residential uses. The property to the north is presently vacant. The property to the south Ind west is developed with single family residences. The property to the east is developed with an elementary school; (c) The application is designed to facilitate the division of 3.79 acres into six (6) residential parcels and 'i -A been submitted in conjunction with a request for the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 13359. Such an action as contemplated, in conjunction with the application, conforms to the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is a permitted use within the Very Low Residential District; L --5r PLANNING COWISSION RESOLUTION VA 87 -15 - WALTOA October 28, 1107 Page 2 (d) The application has been su mitted to allow a reduction in the minimuar. average asst size within said ;Tentative tract Map No. 23359, contrary to the requirements of Section 17.08. 00 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Code requirIng tracts within the Very Low Residential District to have a *Jaloum average tort size of 22,500 square feet; and (e) The variance as specified in the application will not contradict the goals or objectives of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, or Development code and will not promote a detrimental condition to tt;p persons or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject site for the reasons as foi l ows - restricts the agility, to develop nthe �site in configuration nerocons stent�withathe minimum average lot sire requirement of the "ieveiopment Code. The sito has only 40 feet of street frontage on Sapphire which requires extensive street Improvements on the tract interior; (2) Several tracts adjacent to the subject site have been appropriately developed utilizing lots which do not ,Beet the existing minimum average lot size standard; and (3) The Wister Plan of Trails reflects that an east /wes community trail shall be provided concurrently with the development of th subject site. Because of the existinx, configuration on the site, said trail is required to be dedicated along the south tract boundary, thus, further reducing the area to allow compliance with minimum average lot size standards. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - reference$ public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 2 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enfarc went of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the ` Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circostances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the interded use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. I (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would 1 deprive the applicant of privileges, enjoyed by the � owners of other properties in the sam' district, (d) that the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. JJ T i .• nn ii Fr PLANNING 00 tl~ T," �aESULU'TION VA 8-7-15, - tli�iJON October 26, 1987 Page 3 (e} That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the pubis health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious :o properties or Improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, and 3 above, this Ctw'ssion hereby approvEd the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. (a) All applicable conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval for Tentative Tract 13359 shall apply. 5. The Oe4uty Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987. PLANNING C"ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CLvAMONGA BY•. arry e , a rman ATTEST: Brad u er, Deputy Secretary- 1, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regu aa- ,greeting of the Planning Commission held, on the 28th day of October, 1987, by t4s, following vote -to -wit: 1 AYES: COMISSIONERS: NOES: COMISSIOAERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: CrTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA C. STAFF REPORT �� �'� a r DATE: October 28, 1987 0 TO: - Chaf man and Members of the Plannin z g Commission v a 1477 FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Chris liestman, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87 -38 - RANCHO 9,.ZAMONGA CHURCH OF request establisfi a church In 3,000 squ;.re e� oof an existing industrial complex located at 9223 Archibald Avenue, Suites J & K in the General Industrial Area, Subarea 4 of the Industrial Specific Plan District - APN: 209- 211 -32. I. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Apprnval of a <Conditional ' Permit B, Surrounding Land Use and Zonin North - multi-tenant in us is , General Industrial South - Multi- tenant industrial, General Industrial East - Multi - tenant industrial, General industrial West - Singie family residentia'i, Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling uni ts, ,per acre) C. General Plan Designations: roll jets: e - General - Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East General Industrial West - Low Residential D. Site Characteristics: The site is a lease space within -an existing multi-tenant industrial development. The overall site is completely improveci including landscaping, parking, and off - site improvements. E. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Church Sanctuary 1,152 1/35 33 33+ II. ANALYSIS: This ryp:: of use is common fn.-- industrial parks and the major concern is parking availability. The amount of parkin available will be determined by the surrounding uses and their hours of operation in reference to the proposed church's hours oi- r ITEM M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 87 -38 - RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHURCH OF CHRIST October 28, 1987 Page 2 operation. The church of Christ ,proposes ttj., -toid services on Sunday mornings .from 9:00 - 12:00 and on StAgd�y evenings from 5 :00 - 7:00. Services would also be held an Wednesday evenings from 7:30 - 9:30. The facility would be ased as an office for the minister Monday through Friday during regulsr office.hiours. In reviewing the application it was determined that based on 1,152 square feet of sanctuary area, 33 parking spaces would be required within the Archibald Business Park. Of those tenants currently occupying the same building, as the proposed church there is one, the Soup N Stuff restaurant, which has hours of operation that would conflict with the church. With the requirement of 15 spaces th-i restaurant is open from 7 :00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. Sundays. The number of spaces available on the Archibald Avenue frontage is 43. The total requirement for church and the restaurant on Sunday mornings is 48. Additional spaces are available on the east side of the building; which are accessible through a service door at the back of t" proposed church. III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The proposed use is consisltk`t" with the General an and the, industrial Specific Plan. A church use will not be detrimental to the public, health, safety and valfare or materially inyurious to properties or improvc"ents in the ar a. Conditions can be placed on the Condition Use Permit to mitigate any negative impacts on surrounding tenants. Iv. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing i'n T►n. ally Zeport newspaper, the property posted and notices sent to all property cwners within 300 feet of the project. Y. RECOWENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit 87 -38 through adoption of the attached Resolution with conditions. Rasp es - ul ly submitted, a ul er 4 ✓' / Ci ty ?fanner BB:CW:vc Attachments: Letts,, from Applicant Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval with Conditions El CI'T'Y CF ITEM: RANI CUCAMO].' GA TITLE: IV t14 _wry Pc.AIMM, DIVISION ExHmrr= —_ scALE: — is A, m -3 G_ � NORTH , r ° ( | i ^ rn _4 IMIMA E: bo 4tis.IS i .� t 7t � � S •�r t S t �jl NURTH Cif" C' PLANNM DWSUN EXHOT= _ _ SCALE= _ ., m-6' E 1J � RESOLUTION-NO. CJ A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMDNGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 87-38 FOR RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHURCH OF CHRIST LOCATED AT 9223 ARCHIBALD AVENUE, SUITE a & K IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT APN: 209 - 211 -32 . A. Recitals. M Rancho Cucamonga Church of Christ has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 87-38 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application". (ii) On the 28th of October,' 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that crate. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts silt forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Revolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission d"uting the above- referenced public hearing on October 28, 1987, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this', Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to a leased space located at 9223 Archibald Avenue, Archibald Business Park, which is a fully developed site consisting of a multi- tenant industrial building and parking lot. W) The properties north, east, and south are developed in a similar manner. (c) The majority of the surrounding tenants primarily operate between 8 :00 a.m. and 51.00 p.m., Monday through Friday; whereas, the church will hold services on SWiidays and after 7:30 p.m. on Wednesdays. (d) That with the condition of access to the east parking lot, adequate parking can be made available. M PLANNING CONJh'iQS�'ION REEi2llfTinu g(3. CUP 87 -38 - RANCHO CUCAAI(iiiGA CgURCH OF CHRIST:,,,, October 28, 1987 Page 2 ' 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission durins the above- re €erenced public hearing and upon. the speeci ','findings of facts; W, forth in paragraph i and 2 above, this C4,: ission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accori with the General Plan, therobjectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of-the district in which ,vthe site is located. (b) -That the ,proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, ;,fill not be detrimental toi, the public health, safety \. or welfare, or mverially injurious to proper' es or improvements,.,' n the vicinity. - v. (c) That the pr psed use complies wi -th each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby fire and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compiianci; with the Califor0d Enviromental Quality Act of 1979 and, further,,,, this Commission hereby issues a NegativMft Declaration. 5.1 B."°d upon the findings and cmi-Ousions set forth in' paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, -this Commission hereby approves the ap^ ..ration subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the aitached, Standard, Conditions attached hereto and i!1corporated herein by °this reference-. (1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Inductrial.Specifi.c Plan dnd all other applicable City Ordinances. 1, (2) All signs proposed for-this Conditional' Use Permit shall be designed 4: eonfoimance With the ity's Sign Ordinance and the approved Uniform Sign Program for the project and shall require review and approval by th�,Planning Division prior to installation. (3) If the operation of this Conditional Usa Permit causes adverse effects to neighborl-mg businesses, The Conditional Use Permit sh,.A be brought before the Planning Commissior. for the revicm and possible termination of the use. (4) lbe building shall not be occupieu'intil completion of all improvements requires by building and fire codes: to the satisfaction of the Buildings and Safety Division and Foothill Fire "Protection District. Price to occupanc plens shall be submitted to the Fy^thill Fire Protection District and the 'Suilding ald safety Division to show compliance. The building shall be- inspected -for compliance prior to occupancy. rnu PLAWW COMMISSION RESOLlirfON N6. Clip 81-38 - nwho CUCAMONGA CHURCH OP -,CTST October 28, 1987 Page S (51- The floor plan shall be oesisned in such_ a way us to provide access to the east ?arking lot. This access shall comply with all fire and building and safety c,zdes and regulations and be properly iddntified. (6} The building may be used for,.religious asj"bly and other large group t50t pir;sb -Z' . actiivlti - ;-;IY''On Sundays and after 6:00 P.M. on week nigh.. {7 ­5Choals or schools are not., al lowed by this permit; hokever,'this shall not preclude ntii ery`s or Sunday school ", during th* hours of religious or group assemhly, 6. The Deputy Secretary to this !`omission shat# ortit"y to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH``DAY OF OCTOBER, f TOBER, 1987. r FLANKING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO;CtCAMONGA By, ATTEs er, epu y acre ary 1, Brad Stiller, 60 aty Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamjffr'!, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regulariy introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comission h:: on t,e 28th day.o€ October, 29.87, by the following vote- to_uit* eld AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES; COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT,, COMMISSIONERS: , v CITY {E1'/5O' F *RANCHOA CUCAMONGA M � �ucn ►so'►� Ok1-il�lii€Jd�.i' 0 0 F Z DATE: October 28, 1987 1:0 > t9n Chalman and Members of the. Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City'Planner - BY: ;Jamy Fong. Associate Planner SUBJECT; RgKROMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIME 87 -10 COOPER - A requeo'1; o t' uce a a��erage an scap ni�g"fr`om ,c to 17 feet and the required parking setback fram 25 fe_t to 17 feet along a,stre„t frontage of 130 feet, far a two-story. project or 0.6 acres of land in the Office /Professiona'l Distri'rt, lecatd-i at the southwest corner of Beryl Street and Base mina Road - APN: 208-593 -10. � For the above dpscAbed Variance request, please refer to the staff report for Develop,ent Review 87 -45. Thank you, NF:ko .TT M.W ..may::. _: =-- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAFfONGA S') "F REPORT � P DATE: Octolier 7.8, 1987 TO: Chatirmo and Members of the Planning CoWssion FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, Associate Planner SUBJECT: ENVIP.DAFAL ASSESSMENT DEVEL04ENT REY7E4i 87 -45 - I. i;'�Eti°'. a eve opmen m a square oo wts -wry m�i and professional office building on 0.6 acres of ir: :tl in the Offfic /Professional District, )Heated st the sow ; °si corner of Beryl Street and 3ase Line Road - APN: x.0&593 -10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VARIANCE 87 -10 - COOPER - A request to reduce We average Ian scap ng from eet to 17 feet and the rewired parking setback from 25 feet to 17 feet along a street frontage of 130 feet, for a two- story project on 0.6 ores of land in the Office /Professional District, located at the southwest corner of Beryl Street and Base Line Road s- APN 248 -593- 10. PROJECT rtND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Approval of detailed site plat, elevationz, ar ance for tne reduction of average landscaping and parking setback, and issn$nce of a Negative Declaration. B. Surr�oundi_n�_g Land Use and Zoning: rt tf Existing' �,i"ng'T--- F—liTy Homes; Low Residential Gistrie, `(2 -4 dwell=ing units per acre) South - Existing Single Family Homes; Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Existing. Single Family Homes Low Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) West - Office Building, Existing Single Family Homes; Office /Professional Di strict, Lbw Residential District (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) YJ iii r-1 PLANNINd C"ISSION STAFF REPORT OR 87-45 & VA 87-10 - COOPER 'Ictober 28, 1997 � Page 2 it C. General Plan Designations: Pr-blect Site -_ Off fee-7P-KoTass i onal North - Low Density Red dential District (2-4 dwell4 g units per acre) South - Low Density, Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre) / East - Low Density Residential District (2-4 dwelling 4�/Aits per acre) 11 West - Office/Professional, Low Density Residential Wsirict (2-4 dwelling units per acre) D. -Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Re uired Provided Medical Office 3,010 1/200 is is Professional office 3,224 1/250 13 13 Total 28 28 E. Site Characteristics: The site is vacant and vegetation, cons ists-dir—n—a-M—e-9-riss and weeds, Street improvements along Base Line Road and Beryl Street are completed except for driveways. II. ANALYSIS,. ji A. General: The Proposed development consists of a two-story o,-r ' 7—ce--Building with the main access off Beryl Street. The pr-.�osed architecturie is of contemporary style with brick veneer, graylite glass and blue aluminum mullions and painted pipe rails. B. Variance: In conjunction with this Development Review app 0c—aTion, the applicant has also submItted a Variance request for the following inconsistency with the current Development Standards: 1. Reduction of the required average' 35 foot landscaping or. Beryl Street to 17 feet. 2. Reduction of the required parking setback—'-f 25 feet to 17 feet. In reviewing the Variance, staff finds that there are several constraints that affect development on the subject site. It is a legal parcel, ljut substandard A PLANNING COMISSION STAFF REPORT #" OR 87 -45 & VA 87 -10 COOPER r. October 28, 1987 � Page 3 A ip size. 7he,,,ot width is 94 feet, while the lot depth is 261 feet. ?here is a existing 22 -foot wide 2 -1 slope bank with a 4 -foot high retaining wail at the westerly boundary. The elimination of this slope bank would accommodate the required setback and average landscaping. However, it would also create a 13 -foot high wall and excessive grading and export of soil that would be inconsistent with the Development Code. Based or these findings, staff determines that there are extraordinary circumstances and conditions where strict interpretations of the Code would cause unnecessary hardship and deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners. C. Desi n Review Committee: The Committee (Chitiea, Blakesley, Krout rev eweT£f'ie project on October 8, 1987 and recoarmnded approval with the following conditions- 1. The existing retaining wall at the westerly and southerly property boundary should be upgraded with materials than provide compatibility to the brick building. Such mateoial could be of stucco with break cap and /or brick pilaster. 2. The proposed trash enclosure area at the southerly boundary should be relocated to the southwest side of the building to minimize noise impact to the adjacent single Family homes, provide greater ��Onvenience for tenants and improve access for trash trucks. 3. Eliminate the two foot wide planter in the middle of the parking area and expand the planter finger at the entry drive to four rat. 4. Additional landscaping such as Sycamore street trees should b4 planted between the sidewalk and curb along the Base Line Road. 5. A combination of berming, hedgerow, and /or a low level screen wail should be provided within the landscape setback area to screen the parking spaces from Beryl Street. D. '�nvirormentai Assessment: Staff has completed the Alma Effiff—ronmentaT-Ch-eck ana has determined that the development of this project will not cause, ,aignificant adverse impacts. If the Planning Commission concurs with these findings, issuance of a Negative Declaration would be appropriate. 0-3 PLANNING COMISSION $TAFF-REPORT DR 87-45A VA 87 -10 - COOPER October 28, 1987 Page 4 III. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve Bevel oNRUH- Review 87 -45 and Variance 87- 10,._facts to support the following findings must be made. A. Development Review 87 -45: 1. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the ,eneral Plan and the Development Code. r 2. That the proposed use, building design and site plan, together with the r;;comtmended conditions of approval are in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.,. 3. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detriwmta' to the public health, safety, or welfare, c* aterially injp -' to properties or improveme- in the vicinity. B. Variance 87 -10: 1. That r!: .ct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code; in that, without the variance, the,,Aegelopment of this site would not be feasible.;, 2. That there are exceptions( or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that did not apply generally to other properties in the same district; in that, the size and shape of the site with the existing 22 foot wide slope bank and retaining wall, would cause difficulty in designing a project that complies with all City applicable codes. 3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district; in that, without the variance, the applicant could not develop the site. PLANNING CWKISSION STAFF REPORT DR 87 -45 a VA 87 -10 - C00PER f -r 28, 1887 4. That the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; in that, a similar size and shape of parcel has been developed with a variance. S. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,;,, safety, or welfare, or r- Iterially injurious to properties or improvements`in the vicinity. The applicant has submitted a letter providing justification for the variance request (see attach d). IV. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing n e =ay eppo__rt newspaper, the property posted, and notices were send property, swners within 300 feet of the project site. V. RECOWENDATION: Staff recommend approve eve opment Review 87 -45 Nea',�ive Declaration. Red ally submitted, r l `City anaer BB:NF:te that the Planning Commission nd Variance 87 -10, and issue a Attachments: Letter from Applicant Providing Justification for Variance Request Exhibit �A* - Location /Site Utilization Map Exhibit (,V - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading Plan Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" - Elevations Exhibit "F" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval for Development Review 87 -45 and Standard Conditions Resolution of Approval for Variance 87 -10 0 0 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE i ON SLOTKIN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING The office building that is being proposed is on the southwest corner of Baseline and Beryl which is Lot 1 of Tract 9423. This tract was approved through the City in late 1179 to early 1980. The grading plan for that tract was approved and signed by Jerry Grant, the City Building Official, on N;ay 29, 1980, which tshowed a building site and parking arrangement exact) --the same as we are now submitting (copy enclosed)./ This particular lot's dimensions and grading restraints were created by previous development and street,` alignments making this an "infill" lot situation. There is a wide slope bank that will be heavily land- scaped along the west side of the property. This wide area of slope, combined with the narrowness of the lot, makes it difficult to layout the parking as the original grading plan, that was approved, had envisioned. Evidently the City's Development Code was updated ssnce - this was originally laid out and approved. lr We have been able to design the office building to be f totally within the required setbacks, however, tgr,!meet the l� current Development Code requirements regarding/ *king and aisle dimensions, would require us to extend into the street setback. The setback for the parking would be 18' from the ct�_ b . Thin, ,seems to be consistent with the intent of the special note on Page 110 of the Development Code which 122QUEST FQR �VARTARCE ON SLOTKIN-PROFESSIONAL BUILDING says that fox properties less than 1751 in depth, the setback need not be greater than 20% of the depth of tb property, which in this case would be approximately 18-1 This also seems consistent with the statement on Page I Section 17.10.050 "Fif "I't - Street yards may be used fc of f street park=' 7-'4"' It should also1',be noted th&' the property immediate to the south hasoext"t,nded its rear yard clear out to it 1 0 east property line( %Lch is the west property line of Beryl, and enc.;�Osed'th'x's rear yard with a,6' to 81 concrete block wal4.� This is the only &d acent property that granting this valiance would have any visual impact on, and because of their orientation and extension of their backyard, there is no way they would even be able , to view this property. Therefore, to be able "to make-reasonable use of this "infill" lot previously designed ;irid approved under City standards at that time and because of the large landscape area being provided, which is a generous 48.6% of the site, we hereby request a vat me on the setback on the parking only. The building will all be entirely within the required setbacks. Sin 0 oel C. Cooper, -Applicant 0 "J7 MWKY a4motwL i4 #AOC tw ct"LFA;H 3 wk ;Mcr 10 ;4*AA*Y sovtrvA. qv* -AC; " ww t VAMUW AVeNUG 7 A Al 40 PT PIP' A Al 40 ' 14ne put nr- 13ABE4iNE AYE l -•- SCTE SECTION ITKIN PROFS SIOhW BtLDING 4' :2t�' -Q• c - v I 01 1 �r Banding 1fto11 9ixk Woi! . 3r _ high ; c r 98L ksas 22 ov 1 r 17.33 _� 24 9 "G1 PAD �, , s RrklinEng kbil A.G. D sra 3; kigit/ 1 Slaei Carves vosl fts M SIdtralk i t Dirt,' rL� Curb ISr • f 6bPo'1 _ (i Cerb Zrr9 . 1416 Parki+eq Cone. wall. . •'i Section C -C Scetion A -A P 2—-- I "oust 8" Shah Wail Wall P U i ' 1 e "A.C. % o 141! PAD mOeYa f WWI P r 6 "Curb A•C• Parking " r..s• B'C8B r -crM`� •••: r—S Q`30# to Bouline Landscape Section B -B section D-D 1 �r G {SRSELNif. 4 \'ErKx y ) C P N Alt r y�V m i v co _ _• a D N I11 2 PROPOSED PANT PA,' ' Z TREES xsyn ALNUS AHONGIFOLIA ixi _ DODONAEA YISCpSA p 0O �_ GLEOITSIA TRIACANTHOS "r, -RAIN, _ M ' = y LAGERSJROEIAIA INOICA 'ROSE&' ' SHRUBS O r NEL NOCALLIS HYBRIDS RYLOSMA CONGESTUM j,r n y P17TOSPORUM TORIRA 'VARE'GIITA - PITTGSPORUM TOSIRp -WHEELER 'S DWAP RAPNIOLEPIS INDICA 'JACK EVANS GROUNDCOVER ,• '-' " RACCNARIS PILULARIS TWIN PE. •.4- -- "1 CAZANI4 UNIFLORA LEUCOLFANA y..i gy.. 1 GERANNIUM RALCANS'PWAICESS" ILAVENC TURF _ 'KING' (FINK) MARATY4k NYSRID TALL FESCUE COLOR ANNUALS SOUTH ELEVATION auvuRw� S !�- � •uearnwrRmnsvoa WEST ELEVATION -WOMA114mr. I GM#'uR M a � - . lr� FOUMZM- KANTER BERYL STREET ELEVATION .... RS M KAMM BASE LINE STREET ELEVAnON 1 rqo n, �.J FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1, k t1't, A SECOND FLOOR PLAN r .�v • 11': I� l� FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1, k t1't, A SECOND FLOOR PLAN r .�v • 11': I� RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION OF THE RMCHO CUCAMONGA PLX I; Q ?IFIMiSSION `.PPROVING 1EVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. '51-45 FOR A TM -STORY OFFICE BUILDING TOTALING 6,234 S° dARF. FEET ON O..li ACMES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTP:'( CCANER OF BERYL tSTREFT AND BASE LINE ROAD IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT A. .Recitals. (i) Joel Cooper has filed an application for the approval of Development RevVew No. 87 -45 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application'". (ii) On the of 28th of October, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ceAducted a meeting cn the application and concluded said meeting on t!?t date. (iii) All legal 1rerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. Idlik NON, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved., by th Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Fart A, of this Resolution are true and correct, 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting on October 28, 1987, includ,'ng written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Th €,: application applies to property located it the southwest corner of Beryl'Street and Base Line Road with a street frontage of 94 feet and lot depth of 261 feet and is presently vacant; and (b) The propnrcy to the north of the subject site is single family residential, the property to the south of that sate is single family residential, the property to the east is single family �- esidential, and the property to the west is office and single fa?mi ?y residential; and (c) The proposed project complies with the Design Guidelines of the Development Code for the Office /Professional District. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds a concludes as follows: s PLANKING t:dWLSSrON RESOLUTION NO. DEYMPMENT RriMW 67 -45 - COOPER October 28, 1987 Page 2 (a) lhat''th.e proposed pr�ject is consistent with the objectives of the >;keneral Plan; and (b) That the proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and C (c) That the proposed use is"zin compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed use with the Variance 87 -10, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to. the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the p'loject; has 'peen reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Envirormiental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon t:.e fi-ndings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Coemiission hereby approves the application subject to each and every cindition set forth below and in the attached .,Standard Conditions attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. (a) Planning Division (1) The approval of this project is granted _ sub3_ t to the approval of Variance 87 -10. (2) The existing retaining wail at the westerly and southerly property boundaries shall be upgraded with materials that provide compatibility to the brick building. (3) The trash enclosure area at the southerly boundary shall be relocated to the southwest side of the building. (4) The two foot wide planter in the middle of the parking arcs, shall be eliminated and the planter finger at the entry drive shall be expanded to four feet wide. (5) Additional landscaping such as Sycamore street trees shall be provided between the sidewalk and the curb along the Ease Line Road frontage. PLARNM' COMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DEVELOtAENT REVIEW 87-46 - COOPER October 28, 1987 rage 3 (6) A cc4obination of berming, hedgerow n1g/or a low level screen wall shall be provided within the landscape setback area to screen the parking spaces from Be)yl Street. (b) EnqineL�rinq Division (1) Ovkrhead utilities on Base Line Road - An -IM in- eu fee as contrj,�ution to the future unde�j unding of he �, exi sting overhead ou r ut,f i (tc�' ommunications and on th 4 electrica on th opposite side of Base Lineload sh b paid to the City prior to the i,�suance o uIlding permit. The fee shall be one al the City adopted unit amDunt timAes he ength from the center of m Beryl Street o the west project boundary,, (2) Overhead Utilitte-� on Beryl Streit - An in- sieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and il ectri cal ) on the opposite side of Beryl Street shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of building permit. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted unit amcunt times the length from the center of Base Line Road to the ,. south project boundary. (3) "No Stopping Anytime" zwe shall be provided on Beryl Street and Base Line frontages. 6. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987. PLANNING COMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: larry T. RIM, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Deputy-,tecretary o-lq .—A �'���RC 1LlJT IIN NO. OIEiYI! -?i COtisER Page I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secr &,try of the Planning Commission qf the City of 'Rancho Cucamonga, tb hereby certify that the foregoing Resoluti vas duly and regularly introduced, 'passed., and adopted by tae Planning CoMission of the City of Rancho CucaWnga, at a regui:ar meeting of the Planning Co mission held on the 28th day of October, 1987, by the fallowing vote- to-wit AYES: COMISSMONERS< .? NOES: COMISSIONgR5: ABSENT: COMISSiONERS o —a,o °3 G I I� r� �a�Mq �Q �•+V��':�.�.. ~ 4 N+ T � �l��`� N Y � O�iL OA Z �.•. S N s � � � ° W �4°t GG+ M �+.� � T � � tY � y_ {�� y L �{Y.1 + y N + �C.. � p + N i0 M c. Q Y f'N6 2+e Cy 1� wt ck a ;E$�se gag LbitYy of 11 € E 1 RS2 T.'i.re TL .i u� o ^u• ^m� c � � _ mow. V .C� +� 'ayy• N _ I as Evil aN.@ . His N � I t 1 � �M • � � ��E +C3Y4'j}OD . y mom$ j-_...o w�i 3 �n • -M °q °C a $ 3 NO Q L O O hivqv3 S > Y _ �� tee � �' �gaa•y-a3� 2 N Y k may° So 3 � U A9 a! e?e 9L ° Soo,, �L W � � � � J N .R •p Yf U—a-t Ms�r' �giii 6`>at10� �WpYY L ^.OLV�y Y V LQYY. n� +Yna° oho +�oad u3 Q CJ: jA ••• -O 4 +9 °" p .G A,+ �W W Z. Ydr S w W 'o:s `$L ��°' iSMra>yo •N�y N:i L ' �p�0 uW31 �pn. ...'�i `NA'. Ltl1'ui.. 4 V c e N � +�_ Y 8 Y $ _ tS 23 a^b'�8 r�qN 3u LO�"- 3aY "g5��ii is-1 $ Nio gggoa� iyM�.N .N.o$.'t.'.% �Y€ 3po, r M x v 34 pit CdYY +��C• MV + +sg•N�> NN��O U'. �' 6�p�r C°�41 M. Y Y� +Y M p'� >+. �Y Fat O •ul.yy8� Jf Y���Nr 6�iN .r. `4: ._.1�1 _ tt° LY'L' �''. {�{�� pbp+=Y�C��MYYL�_t�s'O rppy C4'r•�fpi t�_caT �yLCML ^_Y V��. _pY� 'CCY K �ML KMUYC N NA�nLJI �•w22 ^° H t N P1 r a I I I Of yi I Cl +��� �� BGiC �Y.^_N ~^ rt {�K pesahiC� Npr irA:YN OLY a,oK ^1 4� �Y4 M��y�y� L`' Y Q ^VVMY 4Y°MYN pLCY Y V!6 A t^ +Y 11L C 6a J3 Y> L� VM YrY Y 1:1 k Wig ir "'^fir as sA sue" - 11V s �tio P fee g • a�'�� e�q*`�* �egM,�a. _ � �'♦ ^Np Z + it M �:Lf,+r�� C!y +Y V°il r,.`Y �• VOyyM� 's .gMM1° Y', `i o �'" ��ce ,,y"J; " ■ }S dO�p g 9 2 y >' ta$yrC R �4 �r{.eVpa M rrWa`�Y ° 1i C� ii^ ti V ~ C W i P I z b i 01C Mi^ rYN >rca Y {L O a riZp vy¢! J�q N :LMT N yLrn {/ �F LIs iY _^ Ya i^a i� 0 Y, L YY�C �.•...s NN NYgYYgyY�r V44 + +L VD °A.S6 °° L '' g Y�.° y.`�'� iii' �'i3§11 � i N sY LL Qa L� app +e1 C�•p °���, V ='6�PO. C ^° =Y•� J+ 91^VV1� � >P°Ia �2 Q6 ^pp �Mpy Y 1.a7 §:5- —gee LO C.t �Y �yyQ�Aaa'��.�UC ryQr� S -t�rMO g Opp �W6 NO KwG.Ni NY <V Al S d Y L w ti I � tiI COYgO CO iY +O �' OOOG 4 +In Y }N�`�a°+ � LQ Mi M w6 :D; V4 .is Z.G °� ^ R .► ~ 6 O N C ' M Y O �'S�. ° p N .h M L i i Y Y O �Sp ° Y �S wu° u�a •Y ROOg�i ap.8a� M a]G y u t1 y N q Ltyd` T q L + +CXYy+• .L. Yji. cp t ^..». q CY ^¢ Nup �VN IYLY yy .�a C` MCB C ` N O O. 3 N T !'.. Y Y �. �I. C N sn ,p cQ N V+ 1�. ° i " ♦6 SIN! °° N N Oy� 0^ �.. a Y O+ �{ +N a IL y ` I `sL �ny aG4 .�..'2.5 PG 1 !Yyt L,aN� t °VL An R. VC MSLS Gab ° +p$ Ulu ` C O �Nr' « �•°',«�t yE NN. rb. sr °S�4L1jy:!S "i$S$` y �L�O IR6� OIY y�.p NLb ��pN{� �yO ggNyG to ss'LLLYY'f1"Y ^Wi'¢[� .L. ^a 4o �. 7� ga a. V. V g Y N G Y Y N yi 0 Sp L L y Y C +^ i� i �`. +y� a•' �$ y M ^y yy L �� G •.Si s:.o aws' se�iu� .°=.e'3'@i s y3 _$�5. y... °Y O Bge�. i ty nN � • N W m � O� ,vi f IIRM YY p Y C v 1 Oa atly rCf d Y Q6Cw Sc 4Y QGS N L•. Cf1 Sc fLN� p w"ttY} C M ^ L ya - ly10 Y r� &° late. ZZ mg a�o "tai $■ :� u � as V lM tai g yp ^ o �yCg■ Y Jq6 u�$ODY Yy Cly�•� �^ LLY �6 c� S4 «N r yJ a.= Yfi 30000 . E. S V veD � 1 �m> 3N5 3M . 3 " 000 =q "YI e6N »OMY+�. QL�N {�•eC.'�pyY g-28 V N i.•pe O Y +�. C °. O C� S C T c n'S a p, N6 `.rt : ie «SU p`CS ^�q ^i Y.4L YV. g ^� q L +VO , C V M� �. �� �j G� i1 •a `0 .�� i +NN �LV. 'fi r' y'a•'o N +r\1 a. s .VwE G q u `• N + M p+ w � "3 Esa. 1" Lp aN V{VL� °a.,�: g.'3 �S- GSN€ "ryya ^s a ^Y`+ t at Cq ChL�i 9yy gip. xN GY4. dL t y'NO Kq "� Y +CQN ILL <W <Q M+. .(a VI� KKY �. &aslR3a°, R 11 E s a 1" z� .� r ,. A. C M yY Aa Y tr f am ' tag uj all a wd= - 1TY . y� O C Y 0 Q 0 t LOYL. Cwy yyN 9 y•a .�Li$��Y� •`�Y` N W x'` "V 2 o ^G a•� yV Yom• .11A Y p a n� uN h w 4e+x •L . > Y ^ p 3$S o rlI iz,c L� `! N v f i'a" YY Y w _L c L ~ ■ ` s �wG Y00 �w 2 s_ g S �s Y p �L yy �1 ti w Nu C .�x gg�V � w >s 1 Y 4 ]�Y p rif �M f� S €a$ V�10 lT p� Y Y O � V Cwt3 V A A. C M yY Aa `g a 'mow t am ' tag �1 ti w Nu C .�x gg�V � w >s 1 Y 4 ]�Y p rif �M f� S €a$ V�10 lT p� Y Y O � pill • i. �':Y S � $ � �I C H NpVV �i w Sw�p M ` LY�& 11 u 2.4 o 11 V 0 `v «rt pA S a .x x �u L N W� C V nO N u V +N• a� c �e Ew W. ,x L N �g u �r Rwg� 1+ v d S a'i i3 v e—S •rJ w YL cY w l� t� Mme. ee pr u M V � Q _CC O.0y{{ a• i •NCy QaM t E pl ` �LN ~t`YN tl �Y zz .5 -'rcj `Y�w -;S tQ• yu f ` Q �N Nvm• HN w �{YLp Q N b q ``yyt �CY V� y0 UY.~ Ly 6 �K6 CaCO t�t^g¢� S N ISM C 5 '�. 3 Y "- +. 2 N S O &� .- eg_s ��C; fig$ ate . Y �C dC a� �B�M N `p Lam■ y N H' N nI L N 0 V Cwt3 V A A. C M yY Aa `g a 'mow t am ' tag 11 V 0 `v «rt pA S a .x x �u L N W� C V nO N u V +N• a� c �e Ew W. ,x L N �g u �r Rwg� 1+ v d S a'i i3 v e—S •rJ w YL cY w l� t� Mme. ee pr u M V � Q _CC O.0y{{ a• i •NCy QaM t E pl ` �LN ~t`YN tl �Y zz .5 -'rcj `Y�w -;S tQ• yu f ` Q �N Nvm• HN w �{YLp Q N b q ``yyt �CY V� y0 UY.~ Ly 6 �K6 CaCO t�t^g¢� S N ISM C 5 '�. 3 Y "- +. 2 N S O &� .- eg_s ��C; fig$ ate . Y �C dC a� �B�M N `p Lam■ y N H' N nI L N 0 T y rn 41 ALA ?M Q~ �CV e Y 'h � y •�� C V �6 i g� D avrie IX 8 a'� .. g � /�• "u `G�M N .TiM �� �♦ O L O N � 3 _C� ).. Q M .•u ��$.g yir� B� c C c •� N ��y�•+ VwQ w` �^ 11� 1Q� 8 -Et•s6 nz �; Y4 O 4 V � �• YQw1T�a pi�pippCq w "O �•��i•� Sow ^ w s � • N yR �, a,,,. tee, 1 � r�i Y ^r{ N 'e y ' M�rEV�L a�3 <a�sx: r a zz Y > C GQ�F.y tiN 84 1NaO+Yi6 tl.K O C OM y p l 1� G �C A �4� O • ii C,O C+ Y M sCl� eL L aS7i Y. L F v. - S we Y Y R L�J�'�:'• T.. ^u L i-2.2 O Lr lb 24 ii R • Z13i 19 *1 k:& • tag p6 3yQ ty} ^ Y & CC i Ya Cam• Q yp_ �1..� �y$YM . y ^0o P^ OYr //,,..• YNO•a 6i N �t•O �q+tVO:� (�..p��yiQ= O�yy �qy Ttorp� y���Ay Uli << C EVY vj`q cciM SY Q V N P`! •f C N i•'1 � \ 11f W E bl M W A A t u �N 6 L ?Y s 1 C � n Y L1 LY M O M s M 9 Y �d w a 9 r 4 �g ! M G Y L N N fY. N a�V � a � M Q r u V, w Caw• N vi. y .; j HuL O M y Q! N L FiT its P I.r V N Vy w o w I L a V 0 M Y L ti wpp F O ♦, iyyf� Y3 Y G Cr M O N p M 3 N Y O 1M 0 GY w LOt pC N y� 1 C O 1.0 M p{ C ` b � L Y p� L7L O C � OOyY YL� H4 Y•.. MO $' e� LYK �' GM uicg � «8 tlC Y �yw� O�• �a Y V r i N ddam► Y 2M4Y. Mi OM i11N r ��}1 n` YqL Tai O N a O y }4tT« L N� V N M C 6` �y Y r YAM C y i 6it Y ±C�� G .J H G W q q M CCO.LI O ao b r w 9 �y S M C� M r G A �s AQ qL q L Y Li N yLy p -C o.W tOI 000 O V YY A1.W.� 4 o.w W LwL p O «NN� � L M�4V YY NQ} u 13- yO iL'1 6 N_GE 01 d i6 O j O C O YaY Qy. Ci .p G nai e �•^ 4 N� Pp Y ��6 W q M �Y' Y V � y � C,4 j G ice^ p ^� 3« 0. yyYyLp Y« Wn A yew a « Lr 4Sp C `t'��CM �. H b• y «a ry. y y{ TG. Ol Zia pN «�qo& a i &o «Y �wYSY Y` Cw ass N �Y wYV C iN YL V.n ^ P Pq yN. YpM� O A`M. �is aM. 3LL0 Q n« O�YG E5r.. Ca C Vp yYy U y P �YU M C�,1 env Yes G M c�YYO O }�'..4 i.. si Lv �qrw Y4 q y�Cb N N G � L+i I L'I --a C N O a� V O• Y Cyd +' . I t'! 1 M L y L .'.. t t ' Y `� N 0 +� C O w LU• n C\ O C L iCt L 4 Y �� ;y�t l az O � q' =T r. W. U Nv �aE-R Yi CG OWN ■N mY G N�� ,flg0« 3NY iY+. v^ E�' pQYr7 YM HO Y� NQ _O Nw 6� tV li i` Nb YY. ?♦ 14M U `Lt � p. f,�p 6r YC Y•4 yLp w L AU 1.Y C._ y4 E bl M W A A t u �N 6 L ?Y s 1 C � n Y L1 LY M O M s M 9 Y �d w a 9 r 4 �g ! M G Y L N N fY. N a�V � a � M Q r u V, w Caw• N vi. y .; j HuL O M y Q! N L FiT its P I.r V N Vy w o w I L a V 0 M Y L ti wpp F O ♦, iyyf� Y3 Y G Cr M O N p M 3 N Y O 1M 0 GY w LOt pC N y� 1 C O 1.0 M p{ C ` b � L Y p� L7L O C � OOyY YL� H4 Y•.. MO $' e� LYK �' GM uicg � «8 tlC Y �yw� O�• �a Y V r i N ddam► Y 2M4Y. Mi OM i11N r ��}1 n` YqL Tai O N a O y }4tT« L N� V N M C 6` �y Y r YAM C y i 6it Y ±C�� G .J H G W q q M CCO.LI O ao b r w 9 �y S M C� M r G A �s AQ qL q L Y Li N yLy p -C o.W tOI L� s� 4 i C o L °qIL LU •. '�_; h o�N \Yp LPL ��yC =1L• CO w M y•'�N aww. `owl Yom° i R 0 Z G { r O CA M • wC- yL ' C M° l O•r~.4 ' °O .gCCi ^� i �Y. 2 �s 4y Y=NV I MM` Y YpYN O fw- Y� a'°� CYM i4Y J�yt MO Yr UC �4F. 4.+i �.. esir L3„��Y uc t IT V M C 4 N u N ~p`N�N R� � N � °i ' Y �.C. . 33 QOiV � l >M E °4ij ^ t yCCw a M=CN �O�`L�i` j •'�L ' t �_ °' -� :7tlN�YVy � ai.i r�t C �Y; yL ,a N �� C• µ iC �O L + I �5i !y� YeY O y�' �� 5 :am- 133= Y 4 3 L 1 V L CC: L C ; J. V Of l a~ ilA y ^ � YyL N�'Y■■•.v yy yjp JI yw Y 9MY ti 6 •� OM °� ^y V� �y1w \'. yYy 34N.(Yt. ' t�■w /C •rlC. +�i �^ �� � iIC p3 YY erUC'�.� Y+4r.I� �'l:°C w{C{1� Awe }p'LAE Y # YK `l C+itrrY' YN'� YO 4N PNM 1= .8 G� <" AN`. N.. Ci► Na H) •O j1 m r R :SOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCANONGA,;PLANNING COMNISSION APPPROVIK VARIANCE so. 87 -10 TO ROME THE REQUIRED AVERAGE LANDSCAPING. PROM 35 FEET rj 17 FEET AND THE REQUIRED PARKING SETBACK FROM. 25 FEET TO 17 FEET ALONG BERYL STREET FOR A TWO -STORY OFFICE PP3JECT ON 0.5 ArRES OF LAND IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIO9f4 DISTRICT LOCATED AT, THE SOUTHWEST MRNER OF BERYL STR(1Ei ANQ BASE LINE ROAD - APR: 208. 592 -10 A. Recital;'. i (i) Joel Cooper has filed an application for the issuance of the Varf,nce No. 8730.gas described in the title of this Resolutioo. :Hereinafter in this Resolution, the suhjert Variance request is referred to as "the application ". (ii) On October 28, 1987, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed, public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. kesolution, NON. THEREFORE, iz is hereby found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: I. This CosmAmission hereby specificalif finds that all of the facts set forth it the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this C- 0ission during the above- referenced public hearing on nctober 28, 1987, including written and oral staff reports, together' with public testimony, this Coraissior hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Beryl Street and Base Line Road with a street frontage of 94 feet and lot depth :7 751 filet and is presently vacant. (b) The lot area is substandard in size, being approximately 24,538 square feet In area, whereas the minimum lot area in the M- fte /Professional District is 40,000 square feet. 94 feet, whereas )the Thminimmumwlot hwidth uiist200 feet ninithe OfficeaProfessional District. PLANNING COWISS:ON RESOLUTION NO, vARIANCF 87 -10 - COOPER October 28, 1987 Page 2 (d) The size and shape of the lot, together with the existing conditions of a 22 foot wide, 13 -foot high, 2:1 slope bank along the entire westerly boundary causes difficulty in designing a project that complies with all applicable Ci>y Codes. 3, based upon the substantial evidence presented to;,this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of - facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Comm;\ pion hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specifiei regulation would result in practical difficulty ,r unnecessary,, physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. k) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to tte intended use of the property that dr not apply geaeraily to other properties in the same district. - (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the samn district. (d) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materia►iy injurious to properties nr improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below. (a) All conditions as contained in Develtopment Review, 87 -45 shall apply. 5. The Deputy Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, PLANPLAN�{jEW.: U Mi5 x��'`} RESOLUTION NO. WW.: 87O .; 4Q� October 28, 1987 ) / Page 3 k e, 0' APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1987, PLANNING COMMISSIV71 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONHA „ BY: airy e , a man ATTEST: ra a er, epu y ei+ : ry 1.: I, Brad Buller, Deputy Secretary of the Planning Cobmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do Hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and f _ regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning i;sion, of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of Octobef, 1987', by the foliowinp, vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS :: i� NOES: C"ISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: G I LJ 11 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: - October 28, 1987 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission . FROM: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Joe Stofa, Jr., Associate Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Appeal of Development Review 87 -06 - Romar Properties - The appeal- ondiitions of Approve requti�ing the payment of in -lieu fees for undergrounding of utilities along Vincent Avenue and 8th Street for the development of an Industrial building in the Minimum- Impact Heavy Industrial District (subarea 9) locAted on the southwest =,corner of Jersey Boulevard and Vincent Avenue. APR 209 - 143 -13 I. ABSTRACT: The Developer is requesting that he be allowed to enter into a lien agreement instead of paying in-lieu fees as contribution to the future undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities on the opposite side of the street and railroad right -of -way adjacent to the development, II. BACKGROUND: The project consists of the development of a 61,777 square foot indqstrial building as. shown on Exhibit "B" (Site Plan). The project was conditionally approved by the City P1ann.er on August 11, 1987. The Developer's letter requesting the irn��'iification of the in -lieu fee requirement is attached as Exhibit "C ": The existing overhead utilities adjacent to the site are shown on Exhibit "D" The Conditions of Approva; require the undergrounding of the utilities along the project side of Jersey Boulevard and the payment of one -half in -lieu fees for the utilities on the opposite side of Vincent Avenue and the south side of the railroad right -of- way. III. ANALYSTS: The wrrent��'Planning Commission policy (Exhibit "E ") requires that all projects contribute to the undergrounding of existing overhead utilities fronting the site either by causing the lines to be andergrounded immediately 'or the ;payment of in -lieu fees, The policy does not specify that lien agreements can be substituted for in -lieu fees as requested by the Developer ITEM;i.p,:, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 28, 19&7 PAGE 2 Although Tien `;agreements have been allowed in a few cases, t e,City Engineer is na';reluctant to allow their use unless specifically approved by 1 Planning Commis on because of possible difficulties in ;Vllecting the funds the future. The following is a listing of mere liens have been allowed in the past and "who approved their use. -_ DATE PROJECT LOCATION APPROVED BY 7 -23 -86 MDR.86 -08 South side of Jersey Blvd., P.C.* East of Vincent Ave. 8 -13 -85 DR 86 -17 Northwest cornev Klusman Ave. P.C.* and Foothill Blvd 8 -13 -86 PM 10007 North side of Arrow Rte., `Staff East of Maple Plare 4- 22-87 PM 10543 North side of Jersey Blvd., Staff East of Utica Ave. s,. * Planning Commission IV. RECOM+IENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider all input and elements of the appeal and after such consideration either: 1. Approve the appeal by minute action and direct staff to °modify the Conditions of Approval to allLv a lien agreement 'for the in -lieu fees. OR 2. Deny the appeal by minute action, which will not require any further action. Respectfully submitted, RHM :JS:sd Attachments: Location +�i'� Exhibit A Site PI air ` `' Exhibit B Appeal Letter Exhibit C Utility Locations Exhibit D Undergrounding Policy Exhibit E CnT O RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGm=G DaN �V rM& OR 87.06 TTL`I& LOCATION MAP �, p , Vt VACAJT vraOMr - , PACAMYY CnT O RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGm=G DaN �V rM& OR 87.06 TTL`I& LOCATION MAP �, p , h AM/Y i VK" /& 1� N.ti mil.- {.f0. YISS}N� l7tt �i/AP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Try: SITE PL PAN a s t J I fill tI mt19wrriri II !lilt voovdbAtt ,r fO-VTV. l srrvrrvrwt . w Mnw sr cb+w h AM/Y i VK" /& 1� N.ti mil.- {.f0. YISS}N� l7tt �i/AP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Try: SITE PL PAN a s 11r l\ MARCIA MANDELL STONE ATTORNEYATLAW 301AN 6EACMW000; { ` `HOLLYWOOD, CALWORN . WM "r. Russell H. Maguire Community Development Deoartment Engineerina Division City 6f Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Sox 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 917?0 September 22, 19 37 RE: DR 87 -06 Appeal of . �t,, '{quirement of in lieu fees for utility undergrounding Dear Mr. '.'.aauire: Ve are requesting that our application be processed Vith Lien Anreements rather than in lieu fees for those areas indicated in subaaraaraohs b, c and d of ter. 9uller's letter dated August 11, 1987 regarding r,pproval of our.;'project: b. Vincent Avenue c. A.T & S.F. Railroad d. 8th Street We have been informed that other developers have been orAr'teo this Option and in view of the fact that our oroject involves:': the construction of one buildino of nominal proportion's, the imposition of these fees plus and need to underground utilities on Jersey presents an onerous burden on thi ^, project. An estimate of the amount required to be spent by us for this one aspect would be in excess .f 5300 #,000.00 - a significant amount`�Vis a vis the cost of the one modest builoing contemplated. We are not at all deposed to the concept of underground utilities but believe that a more equitable method of payment should be permitted us.. Since others have been allowed variances or Lien Agreements, we feel our situation warrants similar consideration so ?s to preclude the imposition of an'undue burden on the small developer. Enclosed please find our check for 562.00 - the standard anneal fee. Vie request that this matter +3e scheduled for a olannino_ commission hearing on your October 14th agenda or as soon as t,ossible. Sincerely, R 'NAR PFOPERTIES "arcia Stone rim: OR 47 - 06 'I'IrL&— REPEAL, UTTE& E 700 I. ., PROP6,SFD BUILDING EXISTING GiL�G. F LR E i EXISTIN6 EX'STJ N EX (ST ilL05. WAREHOUSE C 56 0 r" , RxR �e LESEAND -♦-!— UrILIT` � LINE #9AJD ROLES bb KV Gi. KV ELEe1 RICRL LINES N E ELECTRlr -RL LINES i - ' IESOLUTION Nr 87 -96 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMWIA ESTABLISHINryG A REVISED POLICY FOR THE UNDERGROUNDING OF EXISTINIi OVERHEAD UTILITIES AND REPEALING RESOLUIIOH NO. 86 -77 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to repeal Resolution No. 86 -77 which was adopted on the 28th day of May, 1986 and establish the revised policy contained herein; WHEREAS, the Planping Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga wishes to remcve unsightly bxisting overhead utility lines in order to promote a more aesthetic and desirable working and living environment within the City; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to establish a policy to inform property owners and developers of the City goal. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and established that all developments_ except those contained in Section 7 and any others specifically waived by tine' Planning Commission, shall be responsible for undergrounding all existing overhead utility lines including the removal of the related supporting poles adjacent to and within the limits of a development as follows; 1. Lines on the project side of the street * - a,. Said lines shall be undergrcaaded at the developer's expense. In those circumstances where the Planning Commission decides that undergrounding is impractical at oret;ent for such reasons as a sF- l length of undergrounding (less than 300 feet and ;ion. undergrourti_d adjacent), a heavy concentration of services to other users, disruption to existing Improvements, etc., the Developer shall pay an in -lieu fee for the full amount per Section 6. c. The Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement of one -half tote cost of undergrounding from future developments as they occur on the opposite side of the street. 2. Lies on the - osit r. side of the street from the project: The Developer T, 1 pay a fee t6 the ZT'ty for' one- .alf thl. _&Rount per Section 6. 3• I on both sides of thr street• rae VeveloNr shall comply with c' on I a ve an e � e for— reimbursement or pay additional fees V ►at he bears a total e± jynse equivalent to one -half the total cost of 'fn Vrounding the "nes on both sides of the street. 4• _1` nes containen 66KV or larqer electrical lines: All lines shall be �,..ergroun : ,r n- eu ees pa m accordance wit, section 1, 2 cr 3, above, except for 66 KV or larger electrical lines. P--? ti!Y43TQt�+i. c IC ! nt � W11 In 5. Limits of Responsi!r�Iitiii• a. In-lieu fees shall be based upon the length of the property being developed from property line to property line (the center of adjacent streets-for corner properties). b. Undeegrounding shall include the entire project frontage and extend to: (1) the first existinl pole off-site from the project boundaries (across the street for core properties), (2) a new pole erected a at project,, boundary (across the street for corner properties), or (3) an existing pole within 5 feet of a project boundary, except at a corner. 6. Fee Amount: The amount for in-lieu fees shall equal the length (per Sedion times the unit am(^unt as established by the City Council based upon information supplied by the utility companies and as updated periodically as deemed necessar:, 7. Exemptions: The following toes of projects shall be exempt from tt policy: a. The addition of functional eq"entto existing developments, such as: loading docks, silos, satell-ite , water tanks, air conditioners, tooling towers, enclos6 "of an outdoor storage area, parking and loading areas, block walls and fences, etc. b. BuildU2 additi-ons or new free standing buildings of less than 25% of _-'�­the the floor area existing butlding(s) on the same assessor's parcel, or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. e. Exterior upgrading or repair of existing develepmants, such as: reroofing, addition of trellis, awnings, landsca fe)g, equipment screening, repainting and exterior finishes, etc. d. Interior tenant improvements and non-construction CUPs. e. The construction of a sin�ale family residence on an existing parcel. f. Existing overhead utility lines located in trails, alleys, and utility easements with a heavy concentration of services to adjacent developments, and the utility lines ? ,&,q 500, or more from the right of way line of a Special Boulevard. g. Residential subdivisions of four or fewer singlj ',F-Jimily residential parcels, w1M*e the utility 'roes extend at least WO, offsite from both the project boundaries znd the adjacent property ,,Js not likely to contribute to future undergrounding. All- vferences to streets shall al' o mean alleys, railroad or channel rightb-of-way, etc. IMUMM Pr .3 A'r 7, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS vOth _ AY OF JUNE IW. PLANNING SION QF THE Cr" OF R��lM CUtAMlOWGA BY: •. 1 S A EST• _ I, brad Nutter, .D+s rty SOCrOtarY Planning Ce fission Vi the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do herarby CwtifY that �Aa fortjW If, Aftoluti4n was duly and regularly introdmed,, passad, m4 adx#M by the F': Ming Commission of tha City of Rancho Curare `14`1 at a rs4ular m0fting, of t* Planning Camission held on the O day of ,Tune. 19F3X, the following votr± -to -wit; AYES: COWISSIOM6 : �. SM U1,1C. CHITIEA, MiCNIEL NOES: COWISSIONERI-J ,TOLSTOY ABSENT: Cam+me., -�'NEl25: MjON E ' �.j ABSTAIN': COMMISSIONERS: MAKESLEY I i i _E CITY OF RRTCHO CUCAMONGA + STAFF REPORT ))Al E: October 28, 1987 TG; FROM: '1Y: S'UBJECTz Chairman and Members of the Planning Comissldq Drad Buller, City Planner Sc;:-It Murphy, Associate t—,Iner 1977 'ENTAT1aE TRACT 13053 - CITATION - Review of a proposed per me e, wa $ ong East —Wnuo for a :ssidential subdivision of 74 single family lots on 32.6 acres of land,% in the tow Residential Diotrict (2 -4 dwelling dait> ;per acre) of the Etiwarari Spevfie Plan, located on the east si ±e of East Avenue at Catalpa Stl(�et - APR: 227- 071 -07,, II and 20. ?. BACKGROUND: Cn duly 8, 1987,. the Planning Ctc; '.ssion reviewed anu unainoobs p approved Tentative Tract 13063, As a conoition cf approval for the tract, a decorative block wall was required along Fast Ave:iue. Also, 6idixional landscaping was required between tie sidewalk and the wall to soften the impact of t`:e wall. Following the Planning Commission meeting, an appeal was filed with the City Council. A portion or the appeal expressed concern about the eesign o{ the parf7 er wall along East Avenue, On August 19, 1987, the City Council conducted a. public hearing to receive input and testimony on the appeal. After consider'inu all public input, the City Council modiVed the Planning Commis ;,,i`s Resolution to require the perimeter wall along Cast Avenue to be vleviewtd and = pprrved by tits Piaaning Comissil prior to :Le issuance of building permiti.. II. ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted the plans for the East venue perimeter wall. The major element in the design of the wall is a precast concrete material fwoodcretdi extending along East Avenue. In addition, ruck pilasters vith a concrete cap are propose C. The pilasters will be located at the property lines between the lots along East Avenue. This results in the srcing of she pilasters of approximate y 80 feet. The Etiwanda Specific Plan states that .—ck should be a primary design sit ent of the area. The wall aadresses that design feature. The design of the parkwoy, mywever, is not consistent with the Etiwa,!da Specific Plan. The street trees should be loceted within the parkc.ay between 'Cie curb and the sidewalk. T,,ie a.°ea between the sidewalk and the wail will be landscaped with trees, shrubs, and "n.4 ,� 3 d V au cov,r � a dition to Ua required parkway landscaping, These items #ill ae addressEd during the plan check -process. ITEM 1 'II I , . PAL. ,Cl`Sa�ttF jPGT 13064 - th brt ©ctober, 2Z; 11901 l - Page 2, II?, DESIGN 'REVIEW C TTTE9,4 The Design Review "o=ittee`,,,` e proposc an er , It'E7. The Planning Co issiol updated at the meeting with their `" ,� r` recoamnd3tions. III. REC"MAT &did: Staff' .recommands chat the Planning C aiszion . COITS1 de r a nput and tq'4tiQ6ny on the proposal. If, after retifting 'iU fine, the PI8W,R9 C69aission feels that the design of the wall is 'app,reprlate for Eetrt Axenue, approval of the request through minute action wool¢ -be appropmat ,3. e to Res ' 4 i - ' Aif e ar ty Manner BB:J'i11:YC ' _ Attachment; Emibit "A" - Site Plan - 1 Exhibit W -- Wall pcsign :f Exhibit "C" - East Avcoue G� feom Etiranda Speciff.c Dian F _ t% 1 1 � llf �� j..� '�J E %IRTING 20N➢NSi 5 L _. i r � y Sii 4 FSF c� Yrr:ti'bk.il_ 1 i II1 t Y.11111f - ' l rOr PL.' NN4'1tiC D1`4'8lOd4 €-XHIt T SC:AU _ 11 J W 7i ui o CIATY CE EN 1: RN�HG\ j o I T TITLE: PLANNING DiNrISION, mil o CIATY CE EN 1: RN�HG\ j o I T TITLE: PLANNING DiNrISION, EAST AVENUE CITY CF PL.AiV'i NU DAFT ON EXHIBi I`: ALE- -;t -- E DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT L October 28, 1987 ChAirman and Members of tTe Planning Commissioti Brad Buller, City Pl'anner C iris Westman, Assistant Planner MONFItATION TO TliE INDb!;�r :AL SPECIFIC PLAN RAIL SPUR ABSTRACT: Staff is seeking direction from the Commission regarding a request to mo'jify the Industrial Specific Plan requirement fir rail servic-i for pm.jects being developed on all sites which arc, contipous to existing or proposed rail spum. it is staffs intention to find out whether the;:Comissior would discuss a modification to the Industrial Spe�4fic Plan requirement and if staff should"Then prepare an in aepti analysis of the request to be ,presented tro the CommiWon at its next regularly scheduled meeting. R01 use is not at question, but the impler,,3ntation of the development standards requiring the provision of that use. N. BACKGROUND: The issue surfaced as part of a development review for T—p—r—oJ--e-cT'which, per the Industrial Specific -,2quires the provision 4� rail service (see F-Yhihits 3 and 4 of the att&1ted study). If"no ' A.T. & S.F. Railroad JAtchison Topeka and Santa Fe holds a 17 foot easei;,ent on the project site, and that easement is intended for the development and use by the A.T. & S.F. Railroad as an operating track. (kri operating track is one which runs parallel to a lead track and is used for manuevering boxcars and changing locomotive locatizAs and directions. See Exhibit -2 of the attached study.) The City's requirement for rail Service requires an additional 12.5 foot Minimum rail spur easement for ;nloading boxcars, thereby decreasing the buildable area of the lot (see Exhibit 2). There is the contention that by requiring the ;)dditional 12.5 rail spur easement: 1) the City and developer will lose revenue frw loss of buildable area, and 2) not, all lots adjoining a rail spur are large enough to provide a reaso�,ible level of raii service, if at 111. I T EM R PLAR1N.KNCx Ci>�i�S�S�fi� �TAPF RVORf r ISP I EID i XCJMOW' AOL, SPUR ROUIREMNYS October 2$„ I ,_ Page 2 Wittout Conducting an in -depth study of vacant siten, it would be difficNlt to calculate the net potential revenue loss to the City. The applicant's study indicates that "the building ,.l square footage loss due to the rail spur policy is?roxi�catei'y 556,335 square fee.. The Commission should also cmid<,r the signiffOlce of the loss of $56,335 square f0tet from an= =esvYioated 52 mill #�an of bolding square footage., at buYld -out of the 4e,,735 acre Incntrial < Specific Plan area =.--` However, the pragrtatfcs of providing rafi`i "vice to some lots is another issue. There maybe situations where ;cots odJoining lead rails are no large -enough to physically provide for rail service, but are required to under the } I.S. P. regulations. " III. RECM EMATIUit: Stsft rec— Anendn Etfat the Commission discuss the nee . or so ication to the Industrial Specific Pian requir�nt and dir.2ct staff acc ^.rdingly. p,. Res Sully iited,_ i Brad 8 In - City anncr Ed.CW:to r: Attachments..,,'Gilbert A3a Associatos Stud; is y i; s �i { l gp. 777777; -, TECHNICAL S 2 AND- USTIFICATTOW FOR R PROPOSED PLAN } AMENDMENT TO ALLOWFOR 0 ' ION :6F RAILSM REQUlitENENTS FOR: „ LA �- 33 BUSINESS PARK FVIECT NO. 7090 REF'; NO: OR 87 -28 PREPARED BY: GILBERT AJA &ASSOCIATES CHITECTS, INt, TWO CORPORATE PARK, ;,SUITE 10a IkVINE, CA 92714 FOR:. JIM AND JERRY LAIR[ r 9460 LUCAS RANCH IOAD RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 51730 OCTOBER 5, 19 ,97 E In processing the laird Business Park, the owners (Jim and Jerry Laird) became aware that ATASF Railroad would -`:tot allow the City required railroad spur (12.5' wide) . r ¢` on the provi d�kd railroad ease -nt (17.5' wide - see Attachments ttachments a d #z), Because the C110 of ita "i iro n .. " requirtz a i° i3spuy (ease �' 4see Atfathments #3 - M, the `mss.. forced t., provide= ,77 1� F S. As Rancho Cucamonga continues to mature, land vz .e will increase in many ways due the City's st. orig coW tmen t to tape master plan.' Rail spur !jsers. are generally heavy distribution buildings. The City will see an upgrade of uses in the future'. This means there: will be higher ene pralucts (e.g., office buildings) and less rail ` s, serve -,demand•. The requirements for rail serve along all rail lines as defined at this tines in the ISP Booklet are inflexible for future _ marketing trends cit -wide. 6. The final "hardship* becomes a City issue and potential loss of tax base. In the coarizo of reviewing railspur; easements, Gilbert A$a b Associates (G:i4) perf,prmed a study revi�� ding the y -wide Vapli'cations of the pznlicy of reAuiring easiiei is oil private land (outsid, of railroad -owned property). Using tie ISP Booklet, GM calculated rough est sates of existing and proposed rail lines /spurs in the City of Rancho Cucamonga ;see Attachment #4). For study purposes, GAA es- Omated that Lzino A was 70 %��eveloped, 7�pe B was 30% developed m4l Znne C ,. was developed (see Attachments #10 and #11, which is a tabulation of the following criteria). A single railspur utilizes an easament of approximately 13' x 2 from opposite side (this does not include the railroad easement, which.is an additional 17.5' on each side or"rail line). A total of 26` x the rail line length in e�-Ji zone provides the railspur total square footage'.'-' Multiplying this by the percenj of undeveloped - property provides the Wture r iL ,}reasement loss to private owners. This i 'jGU i�uare footage loss multiplied by.,' „�¢rovides the total building square footage loss per zone !assuming,: 45% coverage). B t I , 9 c, total buiY:ie square footage loss &* to the railsptir pali�'� ro�tiately 566,335* sq. ft., . which is 12.77 acres of building area. '.his does not include any additional railspur ?,roes which could occur in thy. - suture. It is o6vious that this degree of potential._tax loss to the City should be stltdied further in uetail for the benefit of the C"ty as well as its private c:titens. �f The concept rallspur,. Potential at d matter plan level is a meaningful and necessary function in offering a well balanced comity. Jim and Jerry Laird feel th?rt requiring such a function should be- discretionary and related to site location, stint and building size. To have a "fixed requirement withart flexibility can negatively impact not only the private owners, but the Cit;; on many levels. We ask that you review this project carefully and consider our recommendation which could be magnified on a city-wide basis. * Numbers are appro),1wations only, GAA does not assume responsibility for its accuracy. Attachments: 1. Letter from AUSF dated 717" /87 to Attdreasen Engineering Co. 2. Mairam shvming railroad easements 3. Figure Tv T, Subar ".;a 5 A. Laird P'4iness Pa-,k 5. fable . I1 -3 Development Standards Suttmhary 6. Speciric P1aa Rail Service Standards 7. Subarea S; Specific Plan Development Standards`' 8. Leiter from Coldwell Bdnket dated 8/3/87 to GiiberV�a S Associates,", 9. (Overlay) !;ail lines/spurs existing and '�'proposed 10. '- Figure I -2, Industrial Area: Ii. " Tabulation of existing and proposed rail lines /spurs- C F, 1r' /r Is 771 total buiY:ie square footage loss &* to the railsptir pali�'� ro�tiately 566,335* sq. ft., . which is 12.77 acres of building area. '.his does not include any additional railspur ?,roes which could occur in thy. - suture. It is o6vious that this degree of potential._tax loss to the City should be stltdied further in uetail for the benefit of the C"ty as well as its private c:titens. �f The concept rallspur,. Potential at d matter plan level is a meaningful and necessary function in offering a well balanced comity. Jim and Jerry Laird feel th?rt requiring such a function should be- discretionary and related to site location, stint and building size. To have a "fixed requirement withart flexibility can negatively impact not only the private owners, but the Cit;; on many levels. We ask that you review this project carefully and consider our recommendation which could be magnified on a city-wide basis. * Numbers are appro),1wations only, GAA does not assume responsibility for its accuracy. Attachments: 1. Letter from AUSF dated 717" /87 to Attdreasen Engineering Co. 2. Mairam shvming railroad easements 3. Figure Tv T, Subar ".;a 5 A. Laird P'4iness Pa-,k 5. fable . I1 -3 Development Standards Suttmhary 6. Speciric P1aa Rail Service Standards 7. Subarea S; Specific Plan Development Standards`' 8. Leiter from Coldwell Bdnket dated 8/3/87 to GiiberV�a S Associates,", 9. (Overlay) !;ail lines/spurs existing and '�'proposed 10. '- Figure I -2, Industrial Area: Ii. " Tabulation of existing and proposed rail lines /spurs- C F, 1r' /r Is f 0 4t T iAtchllsan* Upeka and Santa Ft Railway ���llpRnlr + A SAW& Fe ki"fux coma nr \ 117 ',Jest 'Third Street San BerntZdip,, CA 92410 i July 7, 1987 File. 11608619 --16 Mr. Ed Fordan Andreasen Engineering Co. 580 Worth i'ark Avenue Pomona, CA) 91758 Dear Mr. Fordan: Referencc,'is made to your litter of June 10, cone -ruing trackage to serve your; proposed new facilitj` within the Laird Business Park project at Rancho Cucamonga. The spur track cannot be constructed on our 34 foot wi,e easement but can be located 29'6" Wi t% of the common line and then only if the site consists of the be_st,bf conditions as all of the comoonnnt dimensions are absolyte minimums. The track centers between the future operating track and the spur track will have to be increased if your facility requires a security fence, or if there is a difference in elevation between these two tracks necessi- tated by the flushed floor df your building. If there is a substantial difference in elevation, the condition can j be hazfdled with expanded track Centers to meet California Public Utilities Commission requirements or the construction of a retaining wall.betwe". the tracks which will also require expanded track centers but to a lessor degree. We are attaching a copy of the F.U.C. walkway requirements (General Order No. 118)and the P.U.C. clearance chart (General Order No. 26 -D) for your information. Our track3 in this area are generally on a 1,5 percent grade and if you plan to '-,.--r your property graded level there will be a 4.7 ft, differ- ence in —vacion between the property corners. We vill be pleased to ausist you with final track design details when you mach that time frame of your project. If you-.have any questions, or need further assistance involving this subieqt matter, please contact Office Engineer .'Terry Krupp at (714) 387 -. 258, citing the file number indicated above. Attachment Very 'truly - -3urs, L. FieWs Superintendent rl'7 M. }� \ 7 IV-38 : y � $� ! x� !� 's 2 !�| ! .�� { � I > k ® *20, i + »o,4 &Ii ° • �� kk: � \ 7 IV-38 : y � $� ! x� !� 's 2 !�| ! .�� { � I 0701-02 0 10-2 -87 PC Agenda f, -m^xr _ s.q {i CCCII 1) W } V I C-0 / Cal p 3' L �0oF]a r F 1. w f, -m^xr _ s.q {i CCCII 1) W } V I C-0 / Cal I IV.. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development- Standards within the Industrial area address seven factors, whiO include; A. - Generdl Provisions B. - Master Plan Requiimaents C. Minimum Parcel Size D. - Setback Requirements E. Landscape Regdirements F. - Parking &,Loading Requirements G. Rail Service Standtards H.� er orawnce Stanrards 1. - Interim Uses Table III -3 summarizes the application of developO it standards which may apply on a subarea basis, inclii -Ag minimum parcel size, landscape requirements, performance re and rail service standards. The setback requiremeeics are determined in accordance with the street classification. TABLE III-3 OEst].OPAW STANWW St~ 5TA5 ffJ ► 1", 2 13 4 5 5" ?" 1 B 9 J 10 11 12 13 14 15 116 117 Minimum Parcel Size (kres) 2 1f2 1 1/2 112 1 2/1 2/1 112 5/2 1 1/2 2/1 1f, ls2 5 1 112 Minimum % % of Landscape - At,ea (% of Net Lot Anna) 25/3D 121-10 12 12 7 15 15 12 10/5 10 2 15 12 12 10/5 15 15 Perfiwmnce Sdwslule A B B B B B A A B B/C G b A B B C A A Riiii X X X X X X X X I X X Ift' be W)Ject to %v€rr Am* Overlay District regulations. **Properties adjacent to rail Wws sMect iD rail service develepaent standards III -24 ell `t F.D. Loading facilities shall be ad4 ply scm,ened from the public view except within the He Industrial category and Rail Served buildint. 1-'. 14. Minimum aisle width adjacent to loading areas, without dock high doors,, shall be 161 one way and 28, for two way. G. Rail Ser ice Standards The purpose of Rail Servic. Standar4s is to provide for the use of RA-1.1 Seruice to those propertied which adjoln existing or proposel lead or spur lines as indicated on the subarea naps. Uses with dependency on Rail Service shall be encouraged to locate on properties (except those in Subarea 6) which adjoin such lines. Those uses which are not dependent on rail service are discouraged from . locating on properties adjacent to lead or spur lift's. The following standards are required for all developments wht# adjoin lead and spur railroad lines. GJ'a, r5 Rail service standards, as set forth it devendix 0 are suggested guidelines for eloping rail access. The railroad and the FUG may consider modification of track standards, therefore the project designer should consult with the railroad at tha time of project design. G-2. Lot division and building layouts for Lot properties Which adjoin existing or proposed _r lead and spur lines stall be dcae in a manner to ensure full potential of future rail, access ss r �aand use and should not preclude rail a_�cess to e --other ro ei-ties adSactlt to such rail lfne�-. other ro Mod _AsTone_,W1_dh_ reduce a property's ability to accomma te potential r%il served e.,evelopments may not De Authorize% G.3. (Fisements shall be provided ftr tea;/spur lines) I as indicated on the subarea maps in conjunction proposals or subdivisions. lo4 t J �W"�VEP:M_;n't G.4. Building design sftll include rail -service features to ensure the potential use of available spur line3. Finish floor elevationi * w and hock height door (per Appendix 0) or. "kic�ll out" wall panels shall be provided in` ai I N s4 Properties a-butting rail lines. � 4;A 11144 1777" Land Use Designati on Pr�i�ary Function M ONLY 5% BEINWOSED Rail SeM�e Fon'CtIon J4 Permitted Uses Costom ma�4atturing Light hanul�tturinq Medium Manliocturirq *AVz;%,,-rA -Ziiv-�il-Ad z 11 -- Light Wholesale, Storage..and Distribution Medium Wholesale, Starage and Distribution 9ricj;l turaT /Nursery Supplies and Services tating and D,,inking Establishment$; Repair ServicLas Puolic Stdra,ge t N avy Wholesale, Storage, and Distiibution �6etomobile/Light Truck Repair - Mi-nor --A Automobile/Truck Repair - Kajor euildingZontractor's Offices and Yards Building and Light Equipent Supplies and Sales &--siness S��port Services Convenience Sales and Servicies Food and Beverage Sales Heavy Equipment Sales and Rentals Petroleum Products Storage Recreatf on Facil i ti-es Extensive Impact Utility Facilities Public Safety and Utility Services Conditional Uses SUBAREA 5 tenaral Industrial e area has rail road: access and is sviistan�ii al ly users W:w 9 —iail *cc , sn =De A �M,41 c-ti ly sgryed b rhil 40j, 14d s s�u rea I s� jocated-soUtn OT A) to the"southern City limit�,east of Archibald, ,west of Haven. It is the City's policy 'to er;oarage the dowelownt of Rail SVZRacfiitte�.�,ovnarcels .1i strond rail dem o6tentISIL ta Vg—e Conditional Uses r kY6W iAtOd IK }f MS I.M4ICW. MkIW(XI{ tk IM COLOMLL BANKER " COMMEACM REM;, MAT._ SERVICES August 3, 1987 17070CASTLETONSTAEET.3UITE3W COY INOUSYRY. CAU"NtA 01740 Mr. Dan MacDavid Principal, Director of Design Gilbert Aja Associates Architects, Inc. Two Corporate Park Irvine, California 52714 Dear Dan: We have reviewed your detailod site plan for the approximate 4.3 acres iiicated on the west side of L:ucus Ranch Road in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California. The existing site plati (without a railspur) provides a proicct which would be readily ma,�katab c. We believe the utility and anpcarance of the three buildings wo9ld ''.t well received by the tenant,% in today's marketplace. We arc aware that you are currently discussiI \the advanlagcs and disadvantagcs of providing a railspur to Building 11V. We } ;(+e reccat?y performed a study of rail served buildings in the Rancho Cueancnga marketplace and determined that approximately 9556 of the tenants in rail served buildings do 1141 utilize the availnbly rail. Our study also indicates that there is a large supply of industrial buildings in the Rancho Cucamonga marketplace with rail service availa!ytc. We believe that rail service to Building "A" wlovid not be neces ,=rp and would result in extrcmz hardship to the owner of the property, resulting from the loss of approximately 4.000 square Peet of leasable space. The loss of this 4,000 square feet would require increasing lease rates on all three buildings to rates which are presently abovr: market rates. This would result in the frojcct being non - competitive and possibly economically unfcasibic. We would strongly xccommend that you take whatever steps are possible to eliminate the necessity of rail strviee to Building "A ", Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, ' dr(Ita 7. Lo —1 IE.evi Mkinna Senior Sales Consultant (818) 810.6418 1018) 810 -6405 klrlviACDAVID:ia jZ`1 q 6 Ll 11 O W Al RY? :.o X61 0 t I AC -^ Ul i qa C1 c g �. :50 ." Q ig a CC a 2 0 CC 1= x i 11 1 77 , I ca t'$ LC °zm x x xC*j X w w r �. Cd cfs vs p.0 II x g. x x a x x o x Qf OTC'' U Uz x �► erg N 0 c LLI CIO �J y M CITY OF &iNCHO ffiJ4 ONGA October 15, 1987 i I} PO4t bake Box 84`4. Wacho CUUM .IX GafoNa 91730. (714) 9*9d051 v —Rc ""t t%l7Y F , COCAMOt:Cp PLAW!,J, pg•.. -I Homeowner AN � 10725 Sundance orive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: HOth"E CCCUPATION PERMIT 87 -255 (10736 SUNDANCE DRYYE; Dear Homeowner- At its meeting an August 12, 1987, the Rancho Cucamonga plannirty. Commission apprgved the above- referenced aplieation to allow Child Birth Educat-on :lasses within a single 7amily residence. In approving the request fife Gdaraission agreed to allow instruction between 10:00 p.m. on uva.ekdays, not to exceed twice weekly. Thq'apdl<';aiit hat subsequently requested approval to conduct instruction on Saturdays between the ho�jrs of 10 :00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. The Planning Cormsi,sion will consider the issue at ivs meeting on;; October 28, 19417', .which begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Lion's park Comm*nity' Center ituilding at 9131 Base Line Road. Should you have any c~nts or concern with V)e respect to this request, please do not hesitate to contact me et (714) 989 -1851, or you may wish to attend the above- referenced meeting. Sincerely, COMMURITY DE`7ELOPME0T DEPARTMENT PLANNTNG DIVISION Greg Gage Assistant Planner GG:vc , �z4e —1 .moo G✓ ,/ �>,G�t.aQ �� � ' <x.e�d.�c.�e�J -,-, dlG+7 . .d�rs� -•' .C,Ci^E- .e�.r' -�"� ✓lttLt�G kre}er Deborah N, Brown Jeffrey King CW Mamafr Dennis L. Sto-At chades3L B4quet11 FamW. Wright Lauren M. Wasserman jJ 1 7j, 17- 8"m pm Z"S 1-1� , , I j -W A- got CS 5 97" �d f X U: �1 46 F ii F� Aurt } ail We All .; ui C S5 1�141� 14` 1' x� ot f of co R � f�VA ✓I Y/ / Z © � 0 �" e! LL L M((yyam• Ne tu' zl! U: 0 P` /C��, co 'co 0 LL: t ,irei W R� M 1 �v 'M ua 0 1-4 101 8A!B,JF['T: t,A FlAiTE ACAL7M - FROM' Ttli Ri„ OIDRNTi OF kVILTORIA. IT 1S DUk l30r)F:ii3TANVIrqb THAT THE 1`hD!,EFJY A',?,7ACJFI1T 'Qj WI)`4!)R,-1W.`. "AF4, IS GOING TO tor. T11RNED INFO A CHILD CHRE Ci7-.NrER. THIE s'RrifIT-MAJ-JNG INST ITUTION WTLL BE DUILJ IN A REc�101---NTTAI- COMMUNITY, ANP WILL. 140T ADD TO THE SERENITY ANI) r,ETTE �NLN'T OF THE GUR HOMES. THEREFORE WE WOULD LIKE TO SP-E lHt--. FX--�nLR.TS OF THL SURVEY CUNDUCTi�D LiLf THE WILLIAil� L'?QNS C,0. f3sNTj/0R (EF C"I'lY OF RANCHO CLWAMONSA SHOW INCi 1HE' 1l*F,ACT 7liF C'47'IrIPA ED AT)r"IfIONAL rRi4FFIC IN rHT3 ARF"- 1115. FFFL THA*! A' €. [EA4'T !s" ;; oF Ti-iE i-JfENDIN(--j TP�-,: t4lf-l- i+E Fki3M OUT4�31B� VF VICTORIA. `A�UAV,'F FOOT FAFJf.-ITL' !}F_ i-L.CCUNN[�V,tfING, CH1t—+Fr0 IS SJILT AN itDDITIONAL AND "IC41 RATE OT� DAN DL ux 'EUTEr'.- DLJRIN6 HQIJR�i. f)Wf-;€ iT OF VILTirk 1is „, NOT FCTl`� "f NF -'f =' Fir Ft'LILATY IN FRE ORIGIN A. tKNINIts, AT ITAWOSED LHU -,,I:H 4ND C-J TtA' C `NCELUD (IIA':) NATTOOCY MOO E"Albi PARKING, FOW CAN t) 0 TFD,'fA-! D-T I Ev FcAs 'HEW f ui�� A-Lf:,WIWj HI'3 FAC11-11-, L! ,,-',A-'J---ET3 AND 14A : E ImE INC ITAIV OF 1517"£ !. owynImsh choulmi BUNT -zYI(wHJ2 KITH Tfv"TIC IX&ELMG WWY; Dom w, l E ” -L I lJTI i SC4 1 00 1 -4 ALE) OF NS Tp, Elymmov X-L'. fill!' E;`V 114E 'HILIALK KjAPRI HIT 0HAIAR 10"SH wcvkTqA. K Vol 0- i� Mop 1 Y, C A " v 1 v i'E mw op w4l"w is, womnoy" i0-, A 0i: ?-T,' 0L Al PETITION ACAXN$T HAVING R -DAY CARE CENTER IN WINDROWS PARti AREA. NAB ADDRESS a fi le l_`i� i Z ?lira Civ_t.ssc -cflU-91t- Ly o .. PE'n'710N PogINST HAVJ%, A DAY CAR4 CENTER IN WIVI)ROWS PARK AREA. NAM ADDRESS .1--l—AA , . .. 15 , cc a&q A�r2- �3 5yu�;L 7777 It J,5,2- calwazor-ra- RIC RL to OR et XFF ar? calwazor-ra- RIC RL to OR et , PETiTIEW AGAIN3T HAVING A DAY cARE cENTER IN WINDROWS PARK AREA. NumE mDDnsss � ow _1Z 4t 7 LIT - — -- � � , . | 5e � �x rirr[Ml �T CJ W8 A VAY CARE CENTER IN WINIROWS PARK F� ` NAME ADDRESS ell 9 -4ias l- Q _. r , ff c } E ECtiiM !}i6AT'rBT pi T �i mAY CARE CENTER I14 WIC 'PARK AREA.- . . AOIER:ES3 - t !M y October 2$, 1"7 To. Rancho Cu angs c i Canfnission Jeri �x F Fran:.; � der S. TCT�.ey RE: " Mwounity ty.Designated Plot inVictoria Windrow3 I would like to use the Planning Commission to consider a change of zoning on the above mentioned lot from cocnxnnity facility to park/ open space usageti �. Tne %u. iyon co. is entertaining an open escrow by a oommer;cial pre- school to build such a facility on that prQger y." As a resident of Victoria Windrows I feel that such a facility i% in- appropriV,,te within a residential ccmmmity. The Lyon Co. has provided for such a facility in their victoria Village commercial center an Victoria Park Lane and Baselina. ror access and casmemC al visibility this is a mu& better choice that a location witMn a residential area I object to the placement of such a facility within the residential ccaimmity on two points. I. The placement of a commercial, facility within a residential a. environment would bring additional traffic thru that neighborhood, not only of parents dropging off and picking up children but also of service vehicles (i.e. garbage trucks, delivery trucks). 2. A coanw,4,ty facility site should be of a nature ,.,that the majority of could benefit from the use o!. the facility. I feel that the re- zoning of this plot to park /open space would ba of greater benefit to the residents of Victoria Windrows. Windrows Park has 1*ccme a favorite place for group activities, 3 churiz -ices used it as a summer Bible school site last year, Neighborhood Watch Picnic and the annual ACTIVE Picnic to mFuition jirst a few. Perbaps if this plot: were re -zoned the Cmmurity Servi^es Dept. would entertain the idea of putting In a covered picnic area and gx«+up barbecue site. T'lank you for taking the time to consider my view point. L